Holy Violence Then and Now Thursday, August 24, 2017

Christians marching off to holy war—how can we understand that? And did any good come of it? To answer these questions, Christian History editors Kevin Miller and Mark Galli talked with Jonathan Riley—Smith, professor of history at Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, University of London. Professor Riley—Smith is author of The Crusades: A Short History (Yale, 1987) and numerous other books on the crusading era.

Christian History: In the first three centuries, Christians were pacifists. By 1096, they embarked on a holy war. What caused such a huge change?

Jonathan Riley-Smith: First, the early church was not entirely pacifist. In Romans 13, for example, Paul justifies the violence of the pagan emperor, for the emperor is yet a minister of God. And Christians served in the Roman army from the second century on.

Following the conversion of the emperors, in the fourth century, the church became more open to using violence. Church leaders, after an initial shock, began supporting the use of force against heretics.

Then Augustine formulated his theory of “just war,” but his terms effectively mean “holy war.” Augustine and the medieval world concluded that violence is not evil. Instead, violence is morally neutral. That makes a crusade possible.

How did medieval Christians support their idea that violence was morally neutral?

Augustine gave this example: Suppose a man has gangrene in the leg and is going to die. The surgeon believes the only way to save him is by amputating the leg. Against the man’s will, the surgeon straps him to a table and saws off the leg. That is an act of extreme violence.

But was that violence evil? Augustine said no. And if you find one exception to the idea that violence is evil, he concluded, then violence cannot be intrinsically evil.

Thus, for medieval theologians, violence may or may not be evil; it depends largely on the intention of the perpetrator. Until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this was the normative Christian view. In fact, the majority of Christians over 2,000 years have believed that violence may be justified under certain circumstances.

It’s one thing to say violence is morally neutral, but how did the crusaders justify an offensive strike against Islam?

If you had asked a canon lawyer (theologian), he would have said the crusades were defensive: Christians were defending their brothers and sisters in the East from Muslim aggression and oppression, or they were regaining land that had been taken by Muslims. Senior churchmen maintained that when Christianity goes to war, it can only be in defense or for the recovery of property.

But if you had mingled with a crowd of knights in the late eleventh century, they would have said they were fighting for “the liberation of Jerusalem”. That’s not so hard to understand when you consider that Christians reach the same conclusions today.

Christians crusade today?

Think about the more militant advocates of Christian liberation. Although liberationists argue for rebellion rather than war, they put forward arguments that were made in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries: Violence is morally neutral; Christ intends people to live in just political structures; Christ is present in the process of liberation; we must show solidarity with our oppressed brothers and sisters; dying in this cause is martyrdom.

Every Christian reformation is accompanied by violence. —Jonathan Riley-Smith

It’s often said that Christians were more cruel than the Muslims—for example, when they captured a city. Do you think that’s true?

I don’t think it is. The case that is always given is this: When the Christians took Jerusalem in 1099, they mercilessly sacked the city, killing nearly everyone; but when the Muslims under Saladin captured Jerusalem in 1187, they allowed captives to go free.

But that example accords with the medieval laws of war: if a city surrenders, you don’t sack it; if it resists, you do. Jerusalem resisted in 1099, and it was sacked. When it surrendered in 1187, it was not. In actuality, you find cruelty on both sides.

We must also be aware of combat psychology. Long campaigns, as many of the crusades were, put tremendous stress on combatants. Today we recognize that under the stress of battle and fatigue, discipline can disintegrate, often with tragic consequences.

In the late nineteenth century, people looked at the crusaders and said, “These are brutal men.” Modern historians are likely to add, “These are also brutalized men.”

Yet how can we understand the slaughtering of entire villages of Jews in Germany? This happened at the very beginning of a campaign.

In this area, the Christians behaved abominably. Too often, Christians have excused these horrendous persecutions on the grounds that they were led by peasants and rabble. That is not strictly true; the so-called People’s Crusade was led by a significant number of nobles and knights. We have to face up to the terrible crimes committed by these Christians.

Why did they do it? Remember that in order to sell the crusading idea to the masses, preachers had to use ideas that people understood. And they used terms of family: “The Eastern Christians are your brothers and sisters, and they are being persecuted by the Muslims. Christ is your Father, and he has been shamed, because his estate has been taken away by the Muslims. You must go to defend your brothers and sisters and to recover your Father’s patrimony!”

This was the great age of the vendetta, and knights and nobles immediately thought in terms of blood feud and revenge. They responded to this preaching: “We are called upon to avenge the occupation of our Father’s land in 638 [when Muslims occupied the Holy Land].”

But soon they added, “What about the destruction of his body in 33? Why shouldn’t we punish these people who have disparaged our Father’s honor even more than the Muslims did?”

Church leaders tried to halt that line of reasoning, but once they had taken the cork out of the bottle, they could not put it back in.

How much did greed for land or riches motivate crusaders?

Very little, because most crusaders became poorer as a result of their crusades.

A German knight called to fight in Italy in the mid-twelfth century, for example, expected his expenses to be twice his annual salary. If we assume that to live like a knight now would require $50,000 a year, that means his expenses were $100,000. A French or English knight crusading to the Holy Land might spend twice as much! The only way to raise this much money was to sell property.

Neither did crusaders get rich from booty. They did bring home relics, but you cannot sell relics; canon law forbids it. I know of no case of a crusader returning home rich.

We picture people, without a thought in the world, galloping off to the East. But we have to remember how unpleasant crusades were. Medieval Christians were frightened by them. Would you want to walk 2,000 miles, starve yourself periodically, drink only the dirtiest water, and subject yourself to violence?

How many people did, in fact, venture forth to crusade? And how many died as a result?

Throughout the crusading period, only a minority of people actually went on a crusade. The First Crusade was organized when there were probably 50,000 nobles and knights in France alone, yet only about 5,000 of these went.

As far as those who died, we simply don’t have accurate information. Thousands and thousands, certainly. But from the medieval perspective, death is beside the point. Humbert of Romans, a great crusades preacher, said, “The aim of Christianity is not to fill the earth, but to fill heaven.”

What happened to the crusading ideal once Christians were expelled from the Holy Land in 1291?

The traditional date, 1291, is convenient for marking the end of the crusades for Jerusalem. But 1291 is no longer a significant date to crusades historians.

There are as many crusades going on in the fourteenth century as there were in the thirteenth—some against Muslims, and some against heretics. Even as late as 1580 you have a crusade to Morocco that fits all the features of crusading.

We think of the Crusades as a military and political failure. Is that true?

In the Holy Land, they did fail. But the larger crusading movement was successful in preserving Christian Europe. Europe was threatened by Islam. For example, Muslims were advancing from the late fourteenth century to the late seventeenth century. Vienna, in the heart of Europe, was besieged twice—once in 1683, which is not very long ago. People were terrified of being invaded.

What would have happened in Spain, the Balkans, and in northern Europe without the various crusades against Muslims? The Muslims would have advanced, and the history of Europe and of Christianity would have been entirely different.

What were some of the unintended results of crusading?

One was a great advance in the field of nursing.

At the time, surgery was extremely limited. But the Salerno school of medicine taught that you should keep patients warm, clean, and quiet. This method was adopted by a crusader military order, the Hospitallers of St. John, and because of their influence, it spread throughout Western Europe.

The Crusades also introduced the income tax, without which no modern government could finance itself.

Did crusades bring any benefit to the church, to the average Christian?

The Crusades also developed the use of indulgences. For Protestants, this is a sticky affair, because they see how the indulgence was later corrupted. But for Catholics, the fully developed indulgence was a great advance in pastoral care.

Medieval men and women, especially in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, were obsessed with their sinfulness. They felt themselves locked in a world of sin, a world from which there was only one escape: renouncing the world entirely and going into a religious community.

Penance was available, of course, but one had to pay back to God an equivalent of the sin committed. Medieval Christians instinctively knew nothing they could do—crawling on their knees to Rome, standing in a stream for six months, whatever— could compensate for sin.

The indulgence simply said, “Such is God’s mercy, that he will treat your penitent act as though it were satisfactory (even though it is not).” Indulgences were an application of God’s love and mercy and grace to an uneasy conscience.

With an indulgence to go on a crusade, people didn’t have to enter the monastery. By traveling or soldiering, they could get on their way to heaven.

This yearning for salvation sounds like the spiritual unrest just prior to the Protestant Reformation.

It is very similar. The Crusades come during the eleventh-century reformation.

In Europe today, if you drive five miles along any road, you will probably find two churches. Nearly all of those churches are built on eleventh- and twelfth-century foundations. Previously, there might have been one church every twenty miles, from which priests would go out to serve the sacraments. Eleventh-century reformers believed religion should be taken into the villages, and this evangelizing drive resulted in a great building program. This burst of construction ranks with anything the Roman Empire did. Someone in 1032 said, “France is becoming white with churches.”

Now, as one historian has pointed out, every Christian reformation is accompanied by violence—take for example, the Protestant Reformation, which led into the wars of religion. The eleventh-century reformation was no exception.

Are the Crusades a root of the problems in the Middle East today between Christians, Jews, and Arabs?

They might have contributed to the problem. If you talk to Arabs now, they express bitter feelings about crusading.

Ironically, the Arabs actually won the Holy Land Crusades. Christians as a political and military force were driven out in 1291 and haven’t returned since.

What should we think of crusaders?

First, we need to understand that medieval crusaders are likely to be our relatives. If you are of Western European origin, you have nearly a 100-percent chance of being a direct descendant of someone who had a link with a crusade. Even if your ancestors did not go on a crusade, they would have paid taxes to finance crusades, and they would have attended crusade sermons.

Second, as a historian I try to understand what people did and why they did it. Why did medieval Christians risk their lives and sacrifice nearly all they owned to crusade? Given the historical setting and their understanding, were these people trying to express love of God and neighbor through crusading? Though I cannot condone all of their actions, I have to say they were. CH

By Jonathan Riley-Smith

The True Origin of "BC" and "AD" Sunday, August 13, 2017

ANNO DOMINI is the Roman expression for: The year of the dominium of the Lord. This is to say that the "Lord" as a title was given to the highest office of the Roman Empire. At that time this was Julius Caesar and it related to any year he was in office. 

There was a gate in Jerusalem, that had the statue of Caesar posted at the gate. It was expected that the Jews come into the city through that gate and pay their respect to the statue as their Lord and Master. After all, the Romans occupied the territory at that time, and also ruled over the Jews. The Jews avoided that gate like the plague, because they would have not been able to keep the commandment: 'Thou shall not worship other Idols..' The Christians did not have this problem.

Christianity really was promoted in Greece and spread from there. Remember that the world as it was known AT THAT TIME, was mainly ruled by Julius Caesar, and anything that was Roman was also in fashion. That is why the ANNO DOMINI was simply transferred to the God of the Christians by the Christians of that time as THEIR Lord.

Now, "B.C." stands for any year "BEFORE CAESAR". This is to say the Romans could not care less what came BEFORE CAESAR, and remember, the Romans ruled! 

Again, Christianity saw this as a golden opportunity to make this one of their own significance, by simply changing it to "Before Christ." Since the Greek word for king is "Christos", it fit. The Roman word REX or the Hebrew word MELEG would not have worked.

At that time the Christian movement was a small and insignificant sect. No one can seriously believe that the Roman Empire would have fixed something as important as the accounting of historic time and events to the Christian movement, especially if it was centered around a Jew to whom the Greek title of king was assigned, and whom they had crucified for rebellion against their own.

I think you would have to go to the library and look up works about Roman periods, especially under Julius Caesar. It was he who was determined to be worshiped as IDOL (GOD) by all nations of his time, especially those nations that he had conquered, and where his troops occupied the land. His role was not simply to rule, but to DOMINATE, hence DOMINI, and not simply a number of some sort of keeping track of time. 

Anything B.C (Before Caesar) did not matter to him one way or another. It was also coined to play down the achievements of Alexander the Great, (356-323 B.C) who was still in the people's mind at that time.

[By Kevan Coleman]

Serious Problem With Luke's Cencus

Excerpted from God, Reason, and the Evangelicals

(Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1987), 

pp. 145-49, Copyright held by N. F. Gier

          Much has been said about Luke's excellence as an historian.  Luke did indeed emulate the models of historical narrative which were current in his day.  But to claim that Luke is a consummate historian by modern standards--as many evangelicals do--is a position which cannot be maintained.  In a letter to me, F. F. Bruce concedes that conservative apologists have been too eager to declare Luke's inerrancy.  So eager was W. M. Ramsey to prove Luke correct about the enrollment in Bethlehem that he, according to Bruce, "unwisely damaged his well-founded reputation as a very considerable scholar."  In his Anchor Bible commentary Catholic scholar J. A. Fitzmyer lists other historical mistakes in Luke's writing and offers the most definitive argument against Ramsey's claims about the famous Christmas census.

          There is no record of Caesar Augustus' decree that "all the world should be enrolled" (Lk. 2:1).  The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events.  Not only is Luke's census not in these records, it goes against all that we know of Roman economic history.  Roman documents show that taxation was done by the various governors at the provincial level.  As we shall see later, the property tax was collected on site by travelling assessors, thus making unnecessary Joseph's journey away from what little property he must have owned.  Gleason Archer quotes a census expert who claims, without documentation, that "every five years the Romans enumerated citizens and their property to determine their liabilities.  This practice was extended to include the entire Roman Empire in 5 B.C.E." [1]  This goes against the fourteen-year cycle which Archer himself uses to argue that Quirinius was pulled from his busy duties in Asia Minor to do a Syrian census in 7 B.C.E., fourteen years earlier than the one recorded in Josephus and Acts 5:37.

          Many have joined Archer in the hypothesis that Quirinius had an unrecorded term as Syria's governor during the time of Jesus' birth.  Some misuse the "Tivoli" inscription which they say proves that some Roman official served twice in Syria and Phoenicia.  First, the name is missing, so this is no proof that Quirinius is involved.  Second, the inscription has been mistranslated.  It should read:  "legate of Augustus for a second time" not a second legate in Syria as the harmonizers insist.  Archer does not refer to the Tivoli inscription directly; but still argues that since Luke knew of the census of 6 C.E., he correctly called this one Quirinius' "first" (prote).  But Fitzmyer shows conclusively that the grammar clearly indicates that this was the first census in Judea, not Quirinius' first enrollment. [2]

          It has long been known that Tertullian held that S. Sentius Saturninus, not Quirinius, was governor at the time of Jesus' birth.  Saturninus ruled from 9-6 B.C.E., the period most likely to be Jesus' birth time.  P. Quintilius Varus was governor during the next most likely period of 6-4 B.C.E.  M. Titius was in Syria ca. 10 B.C.E.  Quirinius himself was very much occupied during this time, having been assigned to the campaign in Cilicia in Asia Minor from ca. 11-3 B.C.E.  Archer's theory is that Quirinius was given a special assignment to do the census in the interval between Saturninus' and Varus' terms.  There is of course no extant evidence for this, but this does not seem to be necessary for the harmonizing that takes place in evangelical "historical" theology.  In fact, there is much to say against it.  Fitzmyer paraphrases one authority:  "...It was unheard of that a proconsul would become a legate...twice in the same province." [3]

          F. M. Heichelheim speculated that Herod himself took the census to which Luke refers.[4]  Realizing the problematic nature of his solution, Heichelheim takes great pains to qualify his pro-Luke interpretation.  He describes Luke 2:1-5 as "an extremely difficult passage," and then proceeds to give it an interpretation that has no basis in the text.  Heichelheim uses the 4th Century church historian Eusebius to support Joseph's presence in Bethlehem at the census.  Eusebius speculated that Joseph's family "most probably had a small holding near Bethlehem up to the reign of Domitian."  Heichelheim interprets the idios in "each to his own (idios) city" as meaning the private possessions of the Jewish royal family, who would collect the poll and land taxes and send them to Rome.  This rendering of idios is supportable, but it is not compatible with Jesus' own use of the word.  In each of the places where we find the famous saying "a prophet has no honor in his own country (en ten idia patridi)" (Jn. 4:44; Matt. 13:57; Mk.  6:4), the adjective idios is used in a way quite different from Heichelheim's proposal.  And from the context it is also clear that Jesus claimed the country of his father to be Galilee and the town to be Nazareth.

          Heichelheim's thesis is highly speculative and open to the following general objections. 

(1) Given the conflicting genealogies of Matthew and Luke (which cannot be gratuitously solved by giving one to Mary), the descent of Joseph from David is highly problematic.  

(2) The idea of Joseph owning property in Bethlehem stands in stark contrast to his destitute status and Jesus' birth in a strange stable. (The property would at least had a few shacks on it.) Matthew does have Mary and Joseph living in a house in Bethlehem (2:11), and only after the flight to Egypt do they settle in Nazareth.  

(3) It would not have been necessary for Mary, nine-months pregnant, to make the arduous three-day journey.  

(4) Not all descendants of David would have owned property in Bethlehem, and yet Luke would still require them to return from distances far greater than from Galilee.  

(5) E. W. Barnes states that "any such census under Herod is highly improbable, inasmuch as it would be made for purposes of taxation; and Herod managed, and showed great skill in managing, his own finances." [5]  Finally 

(6), even if there had been a Herodian census, Luke would still have been wrong about Augustus' universal census and wrong about Quirinius administering it.

          In Josephus' account of the census in 6 C.E., he explicitly states that those people taxed were assessed of their possessions, including lands and livestock.  In other words, the census takers were also the tax assessors.  In Egypt these tax assessors went from house to house in order to perform their duties.  With this in mind, let us look at a crucial error in Luke's account.  Luke has Joseph and Mary making a three-day journey away from their home in Nazareth to register in theiralleged ancestral home Bethlehem.  But an Egyptian papyrus recording a census in 104 C.E. explicitly states that "since registration by household is imminent, it is necessary to notify all who for any reason are absent from their districts to return to their own homes that they may carry out the ordinary business of registration...." [6]  Unlike Matthew, who does not mention a census nor Nazareth as Mary and Joseph's home, Luke describes Nazareth as "their own city" (Lk.2:39).  If the rules of this Egyptian census applied to Palestine, then Joseph and Mary should have stayed in Nazareth to be enrolled.

          Imagine a system of taxation based on people returning to their ancestral homes, going back a thousand years in the case of Joseph.  By this time the Jews were spread out all over the known world.  Can we seriously believe that the Romans would have required them to come back to Palestine, carrying everything they owned?  How would the tax officials have assessed their land?  In The Rise of Christianity the former Bishop E. W. Barnes remarks:  "The Romans were a practical race, skilled in the art of government.  It is incredible that they should have taken a census according to such a fantastic system.  If any such census had been taken, the dislocation to which it would have led would have been world-wide.  Roman historians would not have failed to record it." [7]

          In his famous book entitled Jesus, Charles Guignebert states:  "It is all outside the plane of reality....It is incredible that such an unusual and disturbing proceeding, as the census spoken of by Luke must necessarily have been, should have escaped all notice in Josephus...."  Guignebert continues:

         "We will not unduly stress the peculiarity of the mode of census taking implied in our text, but it is to be noted that it is a very strange proceeding.  The moving about of men and families which this reckless decree must have caused throughout the whole of the Empire is almost beyond imagination, and one cannot help wondering what advantage there could be for the Roman state in this return, for a single day, of so many scattered individuals, not to the places of their birth, but to the original homes of their ancestors.  For it is to be remembered that those of royal descent were not the only ones affected by this fantastic ordinance, and many a poor man must have been hard put to it to discover the cradle of his race.  The suspicion, or rather, the conviction, is borne in upon us at first sight that the editor of Luke has simply been looking for some means of bringing Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, in order to have Jesus born there.  A hagiographer of his type never bothers much about common sense in inventing the circumstances he requires" [8]

          We can now understand why Jesus never mentions his birth in Bethlehem; and that, except for the birth stories, Jesus is always connected with Nazareth.  The writer of John apparently does not know of Jesus' alleged birth in Bethlehem.  Nathanael does not know it (7:46) and no one answers the challenge of thecrowd when they say "Is the Christ to come from Galilee?  Has not the scriptures said that the Christ...comes from Bethlehem?..." (7:42).  In Evidence That Demands a Verdict evangelical Josh McDowell challenges skeptics to assess the evidence for the Christian faith.  McDowell uses the mistranslated Vatican inscription and ascribes it to Quirinius without good scholarly reasons.  He even cites the Egyptian papyrus above, but astonishingly enough implies that it required people to return to their ancestral homes.9  Concerning the birth stories of Jesus, the evidence demands this verdict:  most of the details are legendary and Jesus was in all probability born in the Galilean town of Nazareth.

Note: Simply for the sake of balance I offer a defense of Luke's census by Ronald Marchant.  To his credit Marchant summarizes the objections to historicity mentioned about, but nonetheless offers a quite convoluted defense. Click here for his article, linked to the fundamentalist Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute.  I find at least three major problems:

1) Marchant assumes the Joseph owned land in Bethlehem;
2) that Quirinius somehow had authority in Judea when two other governors ruled during the most likely times of Jesus' birth; and
3) that the Egyptian census of 104 CE supports the idea of returning to ancestral homes.. 

ENDNOTES

1. Gleason Archer, An Encyclopedia of Biblical Differences (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982), p. 366. Such an empire-wide census, if it did indeed happen, would still have been  too  late for Archer's 7 B.C.E. date.
2. Joseph A. Fitzmyer The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to Luke. Two Volumes. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1981, 1985), p. 401..
3.  Ibid., p. 403.  Fitzmyer also counters Archer's attempt to demote Quirinius to something less than an official legate.Fitzmyer shows that the use of hegemon as real legate is found also in  Josephus (p. 402).
4. Tenney Frank, , ed., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1938), vol. 4, pp. 160-62.
5. E.W. Barnes, The Rise of Christianity (London: Longmans, Green, 1947), p. 75.
6.  Quoted in Fitzmyer, p. 405.  Check this link for a copy of an Egyptian census declaration. Look under K. C. Hanson's Collection of Ancient Documents (Greek).
7.  Barnes, p. 75.
8. Charles Guignebert, Jesus (London: Kegan Paul, 1935), pp. 99, 101.
9. Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (San Bernadino, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972), vol. 1, p. 73. 

[Source: uido.edu]

The Christian Myth Is Almost Totally Pagan In Origin

• Please tell me specifically what elements you think Christianity borrowed from what pre-existing religions.

The Christian myth is almost totally Pagan in origin. I used to think that anything outside the Judeo/Christian/Moslem Belief System or worldview was Pagan. Such is not the case.

The two main features of the CBS are the Eucharist and Sacrifice of a God man. These two features were well known and well loved by Pagan mystery cults centuries before the Christian Cults intergrated them into the Gospels.

The Eucharist goes way back into history and is based upon the ritual consumption of the God man. Osiris, Dionysus, Attis and many others were ritually consumed. The practice dates back to prehistory when a human sacrifice was identified with the God (perhaps a Vegetative God) and was sacrificed and eaten. Over the ages human sacrifice was found detestable. Animals were then substituted and sacrificed as the ritual identifier of the God which was then followed by grain offerings, breads shaped into the form of the God, sometimes in the shapes of natural items (sun, moon, etc.).

The mythos of the Jewish Christ integrated this practice into it's mysteries. There is strong reason for this. For some 200 plus years before the time recorded for Jesus the Greeks and their mystery cults invaded and changed Israel for all time. A war was instituted to diminish or wipeout the Hellenizing influence. Part of the Hellenizing influence was an effort to update or change the Jewish religion to something more applicable to the times. After the Maccabbes War the Hellenizing cultist were driven underground; right to the heart of the Jewish mystical culture. Hence the Greek influence upon the myth of Jesus.

The sacrifice of the God man (Jesus, Attis, Adonis, Osiris) was a well known and well loved feature also. In fact it was necessary to have a willing sacrifice before a Eucharist could be performed. When the sacrifice was not willing the legs and sometimes arms of the sacrifice were broken to make it look like the sacrifice was willing (not struggling against the sacrificers). Jesus was a willing sacrifice.

Images of Attis (Tammuz/Dummuzi) were nailed or impaled upon a pine tree. The Jews knew this and wrote "Cursed is he who hangs upon a tree." A goat was substituted for a boy in sacrifice to Dionysus at Potniae and a hart for a virgin at Laodicea. King Athamas had been called upon to sacrifice his first born son by the Delphic Oracle, Melenloas sacrificed two children in Egypt when stayed by contrary winds; three Persian boys were offered up at the battle of Salamis. It was only in the time of Hadrian that the annual human sacrifice to Zeus was abolished at Salamis in Cyprus. The God man Jesus was hung upon a tree; he was also the lamb of God. As such the sacrifice and Eucharist of the God man Jesus is purely Pagan in origin.

Part of the older Pagan sacrifices was in the King sacrificing his only begotten son. Jesus was the only begotten son of the King of Israel, sacrificed to take away the sins of the world. This practice was overturned in the myth of Abraham and Issac when it was found detestable and injurious to the tribe or kingdom. Yet the God man Jesus was sacrificed in the flesh. This was done to appeal to the underground Greek mystery cults who had much in common with the Jewish Christian Cultist.

"During centuries of this evolution, the Jewish people tasted many times the bitterness of despair and the profound doubt denounced by the last of the prophets. In periods when many went openly over to Hellenism, it could not be but the the ancient rites of the Semitic race were revived, as some are declared to have been in earlier times of trouble. Among the rites of expiation and propititiation, none stood traditionally higher than the sacrifice of the king, or the king's son. The Jews saw such an act performed for them, as it were, when the Romans under Anthony, at Herod's wish, scourged, crucified [lit. bound to stake], and beheaded Antigonous, the last of the Asmonean priest kings in 37 B.C." Pagan Christs page 44,45 by J. M. Robertson

The mode of sacrifice was predetermined by previous Pagan doctrine. The type of sacrifice was also predetermined by Pagan doctrine. Both the sacrifice of the king, and the king's son were incorporated into the Gospel myth. The God man Jesus is both the King of the Jews and the son of God, the king of Israel.

As stated before the sacrifice of the king or king's son was found injurious to the state. Before animal and grain sacrifices, criminals and prisoners of war were substituted. Yet the criminal had to be identified with the king. This was done by putting royal robes on the sacrifice and parading the sacrifice around, calling it the king.

"The number three was of mystic significance in many parts of the East. The Dravidians of India sacrificed three victims to the Sun-god. In western as in eastern Asia, the number three would have its votaries in respect of trinitartian concepts as well as the primary notions of 'the heavens, the earth, and the underworld.' Traditionally, the Syrian rite called for a royal victim. The substitution of a criminal for the king or kings son was repugnet, however, to the higher doctrine that the victim be unblemished. To solve this problem one of the malefactors was distinguished from the other criminals by a ritual of mock-crowning and robing in the spirit of 'sympathetic magic'. By parading him as king, and calling the others what indeed they were, it was possible to attain the semblence of a truly august sacrifice."Pagan Christs, by J.M. Robertson page 45

• There is nothing in this mythos that did not originate in other cultures.

"We can only conclude that the death ritual of the Christian creed was framed in a pagan environment and embodies some of the most widespread ideas of Pagan religion. the two aspects in which the historic Christ is typically presented to his worshipers, those of his infancy and death, are typically Pagan." Pagan Christs by J.M Roberts, page 52.

• What about the man Jesus then? Was he divine? Did he exist? Is/was he the Savior?

Most, if not all, of the Christian Belief System is Pagan in origin. It is indeed hard to force oneself to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God when such titles were readily copied from Pagan doctrine. Perhaps the only item not borrowed from Pagan sources was the Messiah concept. That, of course, was taken from the Jewish hysteria of the time. In the siege of Jerusalem in 72 C.E. there were some 18 Messiahs inside Jerusalem alone. Neither the God man Jesus nor the self proclaimed militant messiahs saved Jerusalem. Such was the measure of hysterical superstition upon the nation of Israel.

"There is not a conception associated with Christ that is not common to some or all of the Savior cults of antiquity. The title Savior was given in Judaism to Yahweh; among the Greeks to Zeus, Heilos, Artemis, Dionysus, Hercales, the Dioscurui, Ceybele and Aesculapius. It is the essential conception of Osiris. So, too, Osiris taketh away sin, is the judge of the dead and of the last judgment. Dionysus, the Lord of the UnderWorld and primarily a god of feasting ('the Son of Man commeth eating and drinking'), comes to be conceived as the Soul of the World and the inspirer of chastity and self purification. [J. M. Robertson may be referring to Attis here.] From the Mysteries of Dionysus and Isis comes the proclamation of the easy 'yoke'. Christ not only works the Dionysiac miracle, but calls himself the 'true vine.'"

"Like Christ, and like Adonis and Attis, Osiris and Dionysus also suffer and die and rise again. To become one with them is the mystical passion of their worshippers. They are all alike in that their mysteries give immortality. From Mithraism Christ takes the symbolic keys of heaven and hell and assumes the function of the virgin-born Saoshyant, the destroyer of the Evil One. Like Mithra, Merodach, and the Egyptian Khousu, he is the Mediator; like Khousu, Horus and Merodach, he is one of a trinity, like Horus he is grouped with a Divine Mother; like Khousu he is joined to the Logos; and like Merodach he is associated with the Holy Spirit, one of whose symbols is fire."

"In fundamentals, therefore, Christism is but paganism reshaped. It is only the economic and doctrinal evolution of the system--the first determined by Jewish practice and Roman environment, the second by Greek thought--that constitutes new phenomena in religious history." Pagan Christs by J.M. Robertson pages 52,53

No religion develops in a vacuum. All religions are influenced not only by it's predecessors but by the contemporaries of the time also. Such is the nature of Christism yesterday and today.

Now about Jesus the man, did he exist? I think not. All the teaching of Jesus can be attributed to other sources and grafted over the Gospel myth. Nothing he said was substantially different in any way from previous sayings. Jesus was not a man but a contrived myth.

"The Christian myth grew by absorbing details from pagan cults. The birth story is similar to many nativity myths in the pagan world. The Christ had to have a Virgin for a mother. Like the image of the child-god in the cult of Dionysus, he was pictured in swaddling clothes in a basket manger. He was born in a stable like Horus--the stable temple of the Virgin Goddess, Isis, Queen of Heaven. Again , like Dionysus, he turned water into wine, like Aesculapius, he raised men from the dead and gave sight to the blind; and like Attis and Adonis, he is mourned and rejoiced over by women. His resurrection took place, like that of Mithra, from a rock tomb."

The man Jesus did not exist. There are however sources that speak of others seeing him. These were secondhand sources. No direct observations were made. At one time or another we have all had a vision of Deity in our minds. Such is the sight of Jesus, a mental image.

What of the Gospels then? They are passion plays designed to be read or acted out in front of an audience. Passion plays were a common feature of pagan religion. Looking at the Gospels themselves one finds a chopply written, scene by scene, display of the life of the God man. Only the important aspects of his life are described. The minor events and influences of the life of Jesus are not recorded, which leaves one to think that the Gospels are indeed a play.

"When we turn from the reputed teaching of Jesus to the story of his career, the presumption is that it has a factual basis is so slender as to be negligible. The Church found it so difficult to settle the date of its alleged founder's birth that the Christian era was made to begin some years before the year which chronologists latter inferred on the strength of other documents. The nativity was placed at the winter solstice, thus coinciding with the birthday of the Sun-god. And the date for the crucifiction was made to vary from year to year to conform to the astronomical principle which fixed the Jewish Passover. [The Passover is moon based, an already familiar pagan method of cyclic, monthly dating.]

In between the birth and death of Jesus, there is an almost total absence of information except about the brief period of his ministry. Of his life between the ages of twelve and thirty we know nothing. There are not even any myths. It is impossible to establish with any accuracy the duration of the ministry from the Gospels. According to the tradition it lasted one year, which suggests that it was either based on the formula 'the acceptable year of the Lord', or on the myth of the Sun-god." Pagan Christs by J.M. Robertson, page 68

[From Starwyn To Michael Hardy: MITHRAS]

Christianity and Violence Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Christianity and violence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christians have held diverse views towards violence and non-violence through time. Currently and historically there have been four views and practices within Christianity toward violence and war: non-resistance, Christian pacifism, just war, and preventive war (Holy war, e.g., the Crusades).^[1] The early church in the Roman empire adopted a nonviolent stance when it came to war since imitating Jesus's sacrificial life was preferable.^[2] The concept of "just war", whereby limited uses of war were considered acceptable originated with earlier non-Christian Roman and Greek thinkers such as Cicero and Plato.^[3][4] This theory was adapted later by Christian thinkers such as St Augustine, who like other Christians, borrowed much of the justification from Roman writers like Cicero and Roman Law.^[5][6][7] Even though "Just War" concept was widely accepted early on, warfare was not regarded as a virtuous activity and expressing concern for the salvation of those who killed enemies in battle, regardless of the cause for which they fought, was common.^[8] Concepts such as "Holy war", whereby fighting itself might be considered a penitential and spiritually meritorious act, did not emerge before the 11th century.^[8][9]

Bible

Main article: Bible and violence

The Bible includes several texts regarding and describing violence.^[10][11]

Leigh Gibson^[who?] and Shelly Matthews, associate professor of Religion at Furman University,^[12] write that some scholars, such as René Girard, "lift up the New Testament as somehow containing the antidote for Old Testament violence". According to John Gager, such an analysis risks advocating the views of the heresiarch Marcion of Sinope (c. 85–160), who made a distinction between the God of the Old Testament responsible for violence and the God of mercy found in the New Testament.^[13]

Mahatma Gandhi embraced the concept of nonviolence which he had found in both Indian Religions and the New Testament (e.g. Sermon on the Mount), which he then utilized in his strategy for social and political struggles.^[14]

Christian violence

See also: Religious violence

J. Denny Weaver, Professor Emeritus of Religion at Bluffton University, suggests that there are numerous evolving views on violence and nonviolence throughout the history of Christian theology.^[15] According to the view of many historians, the Constantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted into a persecuting religion.^[16]

Miroslav Volf has identified the intervention of a "new creation", as in the Second Coming, as a particular aspect of Christianity that generates violence.^[17] Writing about the latter, Volf says: "Beginning at least with Constantine's conversion, the followers of the Crucified have perpetrated gruesome acts of violence under the sign of the cross. Over the centuries, the seasons of Lent and Holy Week were, for the Jews, times of fear and trepidation. Muslims also associate the cross with violence; crusaders' rampages were undertaken under the sign of the cross."^[18]

The statement attributed to Jesus "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" has been interpreted by some as a call to arms for Christians.^[19] Mark Juergensmeyer argues that "despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity—like most traditions—has always had a violent side. The bloody history of the tradition has provided disturbing images and violent conflict is vividly portrayed in the Bible. This history and these biblical images have provided the raw material for theologically justifying the violence of contemporary Christian groups. For example, attacks on abortion clinics have been viewed not only as assaults on a practice that Christians regard as immoral, but also as skirmishes in a grand confrontation between forces of evil and good that has social and political implications.",^[19]:19–20 sometimes referred to as Spiritual warfare.

Higher law has been used to justify violence by Christians.^[20]

Historically, according to René Girard, many Christians embraced violence when it became the state religion of the Roman Empire: "Beginning with Constantine, Christianity triumphed at the level of the state and soon began to cloak with its authority persecutions similar to those in which the early Christians were victims."^[21]

Wars

Attitudes towards the military before Constantine

The study of Christian participation in military service in the pre-Constantinian era has been highly contested and has generated a great deal of literature.^[22][23]:4

Through most of the twentieth century, a consensus formed around Adolf von Harnack's view that the early church was pacifist, that over the second and third centuries a growing accommodation with military service occurred, and by the time of Constantine a just war ethic had arisen.^{[23]:4[24][25]}

This consensus was challenged mostly by the work of John Helgeland^[26] in the 1970s and 1980s. He said that early Christians mostly opposed military service due to the Roman religion and rituals of the Roman army, and not because of killing.^{[22][23]:5[27]} Helgeland also stated that there is a diversity of voices in the written literature, as well as evidence of a diversity of practices by Christians.^[23]:5 George Kalantzis, Professor of Theology at Wheaton College,^[28] sided with Harnack in the debate writing that "literary evidence confirms the very strong internal coherence of the Church's non-violent stance for the first three centuries."^[23]:7

David Hunter has proposed that a "new consensus" has emerged including aspects from both Helgeland and Harnack's views. Hunter suggests that early Christians based their opposition to military service upon both their "aboherrence of Roman army religion" (Helgeland's view) and their opposition to bloodshood (Harnack's view). Hunter notes that there is evidence that by the 2nd century Christian practices had started to diverge from the theological principles espoused in early Christian literature. Hunter's third point of the "new consensus" is the assertion that Augustinian just war theory reflects at least one pre-Constantinian view. Finally, to these three points, Kreider added that Christian attitudes towards violence were likely varied in different geographic locations, pointing out that pro-militarist views were stronger in border areas then they were in "heartland" areas more strongly aligned with the Empire.^[23]:6

There is little evidence concerning the extent of Christian participation in the military; generalizations are usually speculation.^[29][30] A few gravestones of Christian soldiers have been found.^[31][30]

Just War

Main article: Just war theory

Just war theory is a doctrine of military ethics of Roman philosophical and Catholic origin ^[32][33] studied by moral theologians, ethicists, and international policy makers, that holds that a conflict can and ought to meet the criteria of philosophical, religious or political justice, provided it follows certain conditions.

The concept of justification for war under certain conditions goes back at least to Roman and Greek thinkers such as Cicero and Plato.^[3] However its importance is connected to Christian medieval theory beginning from Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.^[34] According to Jared Diamond, Augustine of Hippo played a critical role in delineating Christian thinking about what constitutes a just war, and about how to reconcile Christian teachings of peace with the need for war in certain situations.^[35] Partly inspired by Cicero's writings, Augustine held that war could be justified in order to preserve the state, rectify wrongs by neighboring nations, and expand the state if a tyrant will lose power in doing so.^[6]

In Ulrich Luz's formulation; "After Constantine, the Christians too had a responsibility for war and peace. Already Celsus asked bitterly whether Christians, by aloofness from society, wanted to increase the political power of wild and lawless barbarians. His question constituted a new actuality; from now on, Christians and churches had to choose between the testimony of the gospel, which included renunciation of violence, and responsible participation in political power, which was understood as an act of love toward the world." Augustine of Hippo's Epistle to Marcellinus (Ep 138) is the most influential example of the "new type of interpretation."^[36]

Just war theorists combine both a moral abhorrence towards war with a readiness to accept that war may sometimes be necessary. The criteria of the just war tradition act as an aid to determining whether resorting to arms is morally permissible. Just War theories are attempts "to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable uses of organized armed forces"; they attempt "to conceive of how the use of arms might be restrained, made more humane, and ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice."^[37]

The just war tradition addresses the morality of the use of force in two parts: when it is right to resort to armed force (the concern of jus ad bellum) and what is acceptable in using such force (the concern of jus in bello).^[38] In more recent years, a third category — jus post bellum — has been added, which governs the justice of war termination and peace agreements, as well as the prosecution of war criminals.

Holy War

Further information: Holy war § Christianity, and Crusades

In 1095, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II declared that some wars could be deemed as not only a bellum iustum ("just war"), but could, in certain cases, rise to the level of a bellum sacrum (holy war).^[39] Jill Claster, dean of New York University College of Arts and Science,^[40] characterizes this as a "remarkable transformation in the ideology of war", shifting the justification of war from being not only "just" but "spiritually beneficial".^[41] Thomas Murphy^[who?] examined the Christian concept of Holy War, asking "how a culture formally dedicated to fulfilling the injunction to 'love thy neighbor as thyself' could move to a point where it sanctioned the use of violence against the alien both outside and inside society".^{[citation needed]} The religious sanctioning of the concept of "holy war" was a turning point in Christian attitudes towards violence; "Pope Gregory VII made the Holy War possible by drastically altering the attitude of the church towards war... Hitherto a knight could obtain remission of sins only by giving up arms, but Urban invited him to gain forgiveness 'in and through the exercise of his martial skills'." A holy war was defined by the Roman Catholic Church as "war that is not only just, but justifying; that is, a war that confers positive spiritual merit on those who fight in it".^[42][43]

In the 12th century, Bernard of Clairvaux wrote: "'The knight of Christ may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently; for he serves Christ when he strikes, and saves himself when he falls.... When he inflicts death, it is to Christ's profit, and when he suffers death, it is his own gain."^[44]

Jonathan Riley-Smith writes,

The consensus among Christians on the use of violence has changed radically since the crusades were fought. The just war theory prevailing for most of the last two centuries — that violence is an evil which can in certain situations be condoned as the lesser of evils — is relatively young. Although it has inherited some elements (the criteria of legitimate authority, just cause, right intention) from the older war theory that first evolved around a.d. 400, it has rejected two premises that underpinned all medieval just wars, including crusades: first, that violence could be employed on behalf of Christ's intentions for mankind and could even be directly authorized by him; and second, that it was a morally neutral force which drew whatever ethical coloring it had from the intentions of the perpetrators.^[45]

Genocidal warfare

The Biblical account of Joshua and the Battle of Jericho was used by Oliver Cromwell to justify genocide against Catholics.^[46]:3[47] Daniel Chirot, professor of Russian and Eurasian studies at the University of Washington,^[48] interprets 1 Samuel 15:1–15:3 as "the sentiment, so clearly expressed, that because a historical wrong was committed, justice demands genocidal retribution."^[46]:7–8

Inquisition

Main articles: Inquisition and Counter-Reformation § Politics

See also: Christian views on magic and List of people burned as heretics

The Inquisition is a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy^[49] The Spanish Inquisition is often cited in popular literature and history as an example of Catholic intolerance and repression. The total number of people who were processed by the Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000; applying the percentages of executions that appeared in the trials of 1560–1700—about 2%—the approximate total would be about 3,000 of them were put to death. Nevertheless, it is likely that the actual death toll was higher, keeping in mind the data provided by Dedieu and García Cárcel for the tribunals of Toledo and Valencia, respectively.^{[citation needed]} It is likely that between 3,000 and 5,000 people were executed.^[50] About 50 people were executed by the Mexican Inquisition.^[51] Included in that total are 29 people who were executed as "Judaizers" between 1571 and 1700 out of 324 people who were prosecuted for practicing the Jewish religion.^[52]

In the Portuguese Inquisition the major targets were those who had converted from Judaism to Catholicism, the Conversos, also known as New Christians or Marranos, were suspected of secretly practising Judaism. Many of these were originally Spanish Jews, who had left Spain for Portugal. The number of victims is estimated to be around 40,000.^[53][54] One particular focus of the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions was the issue of Jewish anusim and Muslim converts to Catholicism, partly because these minority groups were more numerous in Spain and Portugal than they were in many other parts of Europe, and partly because they were often considered suspect due to the assumption that they had secretly reverted to their previous religions. The Goa Inquisition was the office of the Portuguese Inquisition acting in Portuguese India, and in the rest of the Portuguese Empire in Asia. It was established in 1560, briefly suppressed from 1774–1778, and finally abolished in 1812.^[55] Based on the records that survive, H. P. Salomon and Rabbi Isaac S.D. Sassoon state that between the Inquisition's beginning in 1561 and its temporary abolition in 1774, some 16,202 persons were brought to trial by the Inquisition. Of this number, it is known that 57 were sentenced to death and executed, and another 64 were burned in effigy (this sentence was applied to those who had fled or died in prison; in the latter case, the remains were burned in a coffin at the same time as the effigy).^[56] Others were subjected to lesser punishments or penance, but the fate of many of those who were tried by the Inquisition is unknown.^[57]

The Roman Inquisition, during the second half of the 16th century, was responsible for prosecuting individuals accused of a wide array of crimes relating to religious doctrine or alternate religious doctrine or alternate religious beliefs. Out of 51,000 — 75,000 cases judged by the Inquisition in Italy after 1542, around 1,250 resulted in a death sentence.^[58]

The period of witch trials in Early Modern Europe^[59] was a widespread moral panic caused by the belief that malevolent Satanic witches were operating as an organized threat to Christendom from the 15th to the 18th centuries.^[60] A variety of punishments was imposed upon those who were found guilty of witchcraft, including imprisonment, flogging, fines, or exile.^[61] In the Old Testament, Exodus 22:18 states that "Thou shalt not permit a sorceress to live".^[62] Many people faced capital punishment if they were convicted of witchcraft during this period, either by being burned at the stake, hanged on the gallows, or beheaded.^[63] Similarly, in the New England Colonies, people convicted of witchcraft were hanged (See Salem witch trials).^[64] The scholarly consensus on the total number of executions for witchcraft ranges from 40,000 to 60,000.^[65]

The legal basis for some inquisitorial activity came from Pope Innocent IV's papal bull Ad extirpanda of 1252, which explicitly authorized (and defined the appropriate circumstances for) the use of torture by the Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics.^[66] By 1256, inquisitors were given absolution if they used instruments of torture.^[67] "The overwhelming majority of sentences seem to have consisted of penances like wearing a cross sewn on one's clothes, going on pilgrimage, etc."^[68] When a suspect was convicted of unrepentant heresy, the inquisitorial tribunal was required by law to hand the person over to the secular authorities for final sentencing, at which point a magistrate would determine the penalty, which was usually burning at the stake although the penalty varied based on local law.^[69][70] The laws were inclusive of proscriptions against certain religious crimes (heresy, etc.), and the punishments included death by burning, although imprisonment for life or banishment would usually be used. Thus the inquisitors generally knew what would be the fate of anyone so remanded, and cannot be considered to have divorced the means of determining guilt from its effects.^[71]

Except for the Papal States, the institution of the Inquisition was abolished in Europe in the early 19th century, after the Napoleonic Wars and in the Americas, it was abolished after the Spanish American wars of independence. The institution survived as part of the Roman Curia, but in 1904, it was renamed the "Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office". In 1965, it was renamed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.^[72][73]

Christian terrorism

Main article: Christian terrorism

Christian terrorism comprises terrorist acts that are committed by groups or individuals who use Christian motivations or goals as a justification for their actions. As with other forms of religious terrorism, Christian terrorists have relied on interpretations of the tenets of their faith – in this case, the Bible. Such groups have cited Old Testament and New Testament scriptures to justify violence and killing or to seek to bring about the "end times" described in the New Testament.^[74]

These interpretations are typically different from those of established Christian denominations.

Forced conversions

Main articles: Forcible conversion to Christianity and History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance

After the Constantinian shift, Christianity became entangled in government. While anthropologists have shown that throughout history the relationship between religion and politics has been complex, there is no doubt that religious institutions, including Christian ones, have been used coercively by governments, and that they have used coercion themselves.^[75] Augustine advocated government force in his Epistle 185, A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists, justifying coercion from scripture. He cites Jesus striking Paul during Paul's vision on the road to Damascus. He also cites the parable of the great banquet in Luke 14:22–23. Such short term pain for the sake of eternal salvation was an act of charity and love, in his view.^[76]

Examples of forced conversion to Christianity include: the Christian persecution of paganism under Theodosius I,^[77] the forced conversion and violent assimilation of pagan tribes in medieval Europe,^[78] the Inquisition, including its manifestations in Goa, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain, the forced conversion of indigenous children in North America^[79] and Australia,^[80] and, since 1992, the forced conversion of Hindus in Northeast India.^[81]

Support of slavery

Main article: Christian views on slavery

See also: Criticism of Christianity § Slavery, Curse and mark of Cain, Curse of Ham, and Pre-Adamite

Early Christianity variously opposed, accepted, or ignored slavery.^[82] The early Christian perspectives on slavery were formed in the contexts of Christianity's roots in Judaism, and they were also shaped by the wider culture of the Roman Empire. Both the Old and New Testaments recognize the existence of the institution of slavery.

The earliest surviving Christian teachings about slavery are from Paul the Apostle. Paul did not renounce the institution of slavery, though perhaps this was not for personal reasons (similar to Aristotle). He taught that Christian slaves ought to serve their masters wholeheartedly.^[83] Nothing in the passage affirms slavery as a naturally valid or divinely mandated institution. Rather, Paul's discussion about the duties of Christian slaves and the responsibilities of Christian masters transforms the institution, even if it falls short of calling for slavery's outright abolition. In the ancient world the slave was a thing. Aristotle wrote that there could never be friendship between a master and a slave, for a master and a slave have nothing in common: “a slave is a living tool, just as a tool is an inanimate slave.” Paul's words are entirely different. He calls the slave a “slave of Christ,” one who wants to do “the will of God” and who will receive a “reward” for “whatever good he does”. Likewise, the master is responsible to God for how he treats his slave, who is ultimately God's property rather than his own. This is another way of saying that the slave, no less than the master, has been made in God's image. As such, he possesses inestimable worth and great dignity. He is to be treated properly. In such a framework slavery, even though it was still slavery, could never be the same type of institution that was imposed on non-Christians. It was this transformation (which came from viewing all persons as being made in God's image) that ultimately destroyed slavery.^[84] Tradition describes Pope Pius I (term c. 158–167) and Pope Callixtus I (term c. 217–222) as former slaves.^[85]

Nearly all Christian leaders before the late 15th century recognised the institution of slavery, within specific Biblical limitations, as being consistent with Christian theology.^{[citation needed] [86][better source needed]} In 1452, Pope Nicholas V instituted the hereditary slavery of captured Muslims and pagans, regarding all non-Christians as "enemies of Christ."^[87]

Genesis 9:25–27, the Curse of Ham, says: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem." This verse has been used to justify racialized slavery, since "Christians and even some Muslims eventually identified Ham's descendents as black Africans".^[82][88] Anthony Pagden argued that "This reading of the Book of Genesis merged easily into a medieval iconographic tradition in which devils were always depicted as black. Later pseudo-scientific theories would be built around African skull shapes, dental structure, and body postures, in an attempt to find an unassailable argument—rooted in whatever the most persuasive contemporary idiom happened to be: law, theology, genealogy, or natural science—why one part of the human race should live in perpetual indebtedness to another."^[89]

Rodney Stark makes the argument in For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,^[90] that Christianity helped to end slavery worldwide, as does Lamin Sanneh in Abolitionists Abroad.^[91] These authors point out that Christians who viewed slavery as wrong on the basis of their religious convictions spearheaded abolitionism, and many of the early campaigners for the abolition of slavery were driven by their Christian faith and a desire to realize their view that all people are equal under God.^[92]

Modern-day Christians generally condemn slavery as wrong and contrary to God's will. Only peripheral groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and other Christian hate groups on the racist fringes of the Christian Reconstructionist and Christian Identity movements advocate the reinstitution of slavery.^[82] Full adherents of Christian Reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.^[93][94][95] With these exceptions, all Christian faith groups now condemn slavery, and they see the practice as incompatible with basic Christian principles.^[82][86]

Violence against Jews

Main article: Antisemitism in Christianity

A strain of hostility among Christians towards Judaism and the Jewish people developed in the early years of Christianity, persisted over the ensuing centuries, was driven by numerous factors including theological differences, the Christian drive for converts^[96] decreed by the Great Commission, a misunderstanding of Jewish beliefs and practices, and a perceived Jewish hostility towards Christians.

These attitudes were reinforced in Christian preaching, art and popular teaching over the centuries which contained contempt for Jews.^[97]

Modern Antisemitism has primarily been described as hatred against Jews as a race with its modern expression rooted in 18th century racial theories, while anti-Judaism is described as hostility towards the Jewish religion, but in Western Christianity it effectively merged into antisemitism during the 12th century.^[98]

Domestic violence

Main article: Christianity and domestic violence

Christian opposition to violence

Main articles: Christian pacifism, Peace churches, and Religion and peacebuilding § Christianity and peacebuilding

See also: Christian humanism

Historian Roland Bainton described the early church as pacifist – a period that ended with the accession of Constantine.^[99]

In the first few centuries of Christianity, many Christians refused to engage in military service. In fact, there were a number of famous examples of soldiers who became Christians and refused to engage in combat afterwards. They were subsequently executed for their refusal to fight.^[100] The commitment to pacifism and the rejection of military service are attributed by Mark J. Allman, professor in the Department of Religious and Theological Studies at Merrimack College,^[101] to two principles: "(1) the use of force (violence) was seen as antithetical to Jesus' teachings and service in the Roman military required worship of the emperor as a god which was a form of idolatry."^[102]

In the 3rd century, Origen wrote: "Christians could not slay their enemies."^[103] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins."^[104][105] Tertullian argued forcefully against all forms of violence, considering abortion, warfare and even judicial death penalties to be forms of murder.^[106][107]

Pacifist and violence-resisting traditions have continued into contemporary times.^{[108][109][110]}

Several present-day Christian churches and communities were established specifically with nonviolence, including conscientious objection to military service, as foundations of their beliefs.^[111] Members of the Historic Peace Churches such as Quakers, Mennonites, Amish or Church of the Brethren object to war from the conviction that Christian life is incompatible with military action, because Jesus enjoins his followers to love their enemies and to refuse violence.^[112]

In the 20th century, Martin Luther King, Jr. adapted the nonviolent ideas of Gandhi to a Baptist theology and politics.^[113]

In the 21st century, Christian feminist thinkers have drawn attention to opposing violence against women.^[114]

See also

• Army of God (United States)
• Christian Identity
• Christian terrorism
• Christianity and capital punishment
• Christians in the military
• Christofascism
• Clerical fascism
• Crusades
• God's Army (revolutionary group)
• Inquisition
• Iron Guard
• Lord's Resistance Army
• Medieval inquisition
• Moral absolutism
• Mormonism and violence
• National-Christian Defense League
• Religious hate groups
• Religious antisemitism
• Religious intolerance
• Religious persecution
• Religious terrorism
• Religious violence
• Religious war

Notes

1. ^ Clouse, Robert G. (1986). War Four Christian views. Winona Lake, Indiana: BMH Books. pp. 12–22.
2. ^ Duffey, Michael (2015-06-22). "2. Christianity From Peacemaking to Violence to Home Again". In Omar, Irfan; Duffey, Michael (eds.). Peacemaking and the Challenge of Violence in World Religions. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 55–56. ISBN 9781118953426.
3. ^ 
   Jump up to:
   ^a b "Religion & Ethics – Just War Theory -introduction". BBC. Retrieved 2010-03-16.
4. ^ Syse, Henrik (2010). "The Platonic roots of just war doctrine: a reading of Plato's Republic". Diametros. 23: 104–123.
5. ^ Duffey, Michael (2015-06-22). "2. Christianity From Peacemaking to Violence to Home Again". In Omar, Irfan; Duffey, Michael (eds.). Peacemaking and the Challenge of Violence in World Religions. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 58. ISBN 9781118953426. The purpose of war for Augustine was to preserve "good order". It was a long lasting influence of St. Augustine's teaching on war and violence that shaped mainstream Christianity for 1500 years. Augustine fathered the mainstream Christian view that violence was just a means for political ends...Indeed, Augustine's perspective was not based on the New Testament.
6. ^ 
   Jump up to:
   ^a b Wells, Donald, ed. (1996). An Encyclopedia of War and Ethics. Greenwood Press. pp. 30–31. ISBN 9780313291166. In 383, Christianity was declared the official religion of the Roman Empire, and Christians who had previously been aloof from political and social responsibility were compelled to rethink their role. Augustine, and his teacher St. Ambrose (340-397), in part inspired by the writings of Cicero (106-43 s.c.), developed just war criteria to show why Christians could consistently serve in the military as armed soldiers, at least in some wars. Although Augustine deplored the ambitions that promoted wars for sovereignty over others, he believed that there were conditions under which it was just to extend an empire... As instances of worthy causes Augustine named preservation of the well-being of the state, punishment of neighbor nations that had refused to make amends for wrongs committed by their subjects, to restore what had been taken unjustly, and even to expand an empire if one was taking land a way from a tyrant (Questions Concerning the Heputteuch. Question 10; and City of God. Book 4, Part 15).
7. ^ Bonney, Richard (2011). "Just War". The Encyclopedia of War. Encyclopedia of Wars. doi:10.1002/9781444338232.wbeow328. ISBN 9781405190374. Questions such as under which circumstances war may be legitimized, and the rules of war controlled, are the concern of just war theory in the Christian tradition from the writings of St. Augustine in the fourth century, through the scholastics of the Middle Ages (above all, St. Thomas Aquinas) and early modern period (Vitoria, Sua´rez, and Grotius) to modern commentators such as George Weigel and Michael Walzer. The early Christian writers in turn drew upon Roman Law and the writings of Cicero; indeed, in the view of Alex J. Bellamy, they “added little that was substantially new” (Bellamy 2006: 8).
8. ^ 
   Jump up to:
   ^a b Peters, Edward (1998). "Introduction". The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source Materials (2 ed.). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0812216561.
9. ^ Duffey, Michael (2015-06-22). "2. Christianity From Peacemaking to Violence to Home Again". In Omar, Irfan; Duffey, Michael (eds.). Peacemaking and the Challenge of Violence in World Religions. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9781118953426.
10. ^ Boustan, Ra'anan S. (2010). Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity. BRILL. p. 3.
11. ^ Jenkins, Philip (March 8, 2009). "Dark Passages". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2010-11-26. the Bible overflows with "texts of terror," to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. … If the founding text shapes the whole religion, then Judaism and Christianity deserve the utmost condemnation as religions of savagery.
12. ^ "Shelly Matthews – Brite Divinity School". Retrieved 24 June 2017.
13. ^ Gibson, Leigh; Matthews, Shelly (2005). Violence in the New Testament. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 1–3. Marcion's second-century distinction between the God of the Old Testament as responsible for violence and vengeance and the God of the New Testament as a God of mercy and love looms large in the consciousness of the West. [...] More troubling than studies of violence in the Bible that ignore the New Testament are those that lift up the New Testament as somehow containing the antidote for Old Testament violence. This is ultimately the case, for instance, in the work of Girard [...] But as John Gager shows in this volume through his examination of the work of Girard's disciple, Robert Hamerton-Kelly, such a line of thinking has the potential to reinscribe insidiously the prejudices of Marcion.
14. ^ Rynne, Terrence J. (2008). Gandhi and Jesus: The Saving Power of Nonviolence. Orbis Books. ISBN 978-1-57075-766-2. Retrieved 1 April 2017.
15. ^ J. Denny Weaver (2001). "Violence in Christian Theology". Cross Currents. Retrieved 2010-10-27.
16. ^ see e.g.: John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration on Protestant England 1558–1689, 2000, p.22
17. ^ Volf, Miroslav (2008). "Christianity and Violence". In Hess, Richard S.; Martens, E.A. (eds.). War in the Bible and terrorism in the twenty-first century. Eisenbrauns. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-1-57506-803-9. Retrieved June 1, 2010.
18. ^ Volf 2008, p. 13
19. ^ 
    Jump up to:
    ^a b Mark Juergensmeyer (2004). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24011-7.
20. ^ Smith, Ted (2015). "Religious Violence? Politics of a Higher Law". The Christian Century. 5: 24–27 – via Ebsco host.
21. ^ Girard, Rene. The Scapegoat. p. 204.
22. ^ 
    Jump up to:
    ^a b Kreider, Alan (2003). "Military Service in the Church Orders". The Journal of Religious Ethics. 31.3 (Winter, 2003): 415–416. doi:10.1111/1467-9795.00146. JSTOR 40008336.
23. ^ 
    Jump up to:
    ^{a b c d e f} Kalantzis, George (2012). Caesar and the Lamb: Early Christian Attitudes on War and Military Service. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books. ISBN 978-1608992539.
24. ^ Latourette, Kenneth Scott (1953). A History of Christianity: Beginnings to 1500. 1. HarperSanFransisco, a division of Harper Collins. pp. 242–243.
25. ^ Sider, Ronald J. (2012). Ronald J. Sider (ed.). The Early Church on killing. Grand Rapids Michigan: Baker Publishing Group. Afterword. ISBN 978-0-8010-3630-9.
26. ^ Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies and History at North Dakota State University: "Helgeland – History, Philosophy, and Religious Studies (NDSU)". www.ndsu.edu. Retrieved 29 June 2017.
27. ^ Helgeland, John (1979). H. Temporini and W. Haase (ed.). Christians and the Roman Army from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine. 23. Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 724–834.
28. ^ College, Wheaton. "George Kalantzis – Wheaton". www.wheaton.edu. Archived from the original on 2 September 2017. Retrieved 29 June 2017.
29. ^ Leithart, Peter J. (2009). Defending Constantine. Madison, Wisconsin: InterVarsity Press. p. 260.
30. ^ 
    Jump up to:
    ^a b Shean, John F. (2010). Soldiering for God: Christianity and the Roman Army. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. p. 183. ISBN 978-9004187313.
31. ^ Leclerq, Henri (1933). "Militarisme". In Cabrol, Fernand; Leclerq, Henri (eds.). Dictionnaire d'archéologie chretienne de le liturgie. XI/1. Paris: Letouzey et Ané. pp. 1107–1181.
32. ^ Lazar, Seth (24 June 2017). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
33. ^ "Just War Theory [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]". Iep.utm.edu. 2009-02-10. Retrieved 2010-03-16.
34. ^ Christians and War: Thomas Aquinas refines the "Just War" Theory ArchivedFebruary 25, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
35. ^ Diamond, Jared (2008). 1000 Events That Shaped the World. National Geographic Society. p. 74. ISBN 978-1-4262-0314-5.
36. ^ Ulrich Luz, Matthew in History, Fortress Press, 1994, p26-27
37. ^ "JustWarTheory.com". JustWarTheory.com. Retrieved 2010-03-16.
38. ^ "Home > Publications >". Eppc.org. 1998-09-01. Archived from the original on 2009-05-09. Retrieved 2010-03-16.
39. ^ "Christian Jihad: The Crusades and Killing in the Name of Christ". Archived from the original on 2008-07-09.
40. ^ "Favorite Professors: Remembering Jill Claster (WSC '52, GSAS '54)".
41. ^ Claster, Jill N. (2009). Sacred violence: the European crusades to the Middle East, 1095–1396. University of Toronto Press. pp. xvii–xviii. ISBN 978-1-4426-0060-7.
42. ^ E. Randolph Daniel; Murphy, Thomas Patrick (1978). "The Holy War (review)". Speculum. 53 (3): 602–603. doi:10.2307/2855169. JSTOR 2855169.
43. ^ Thomas Patrick Murphy, editor (1976). The holy war. Conference on Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Ohio State University Press.
44. ^ Bernard of Clairvaux, In Praise Of The New Knighthood, ca. 1135
45. ^ Smith, Jonathan R. "Rethinking the Crusades". Catholic Education Resource Center.
46. ^ 
    Jump up to:
    ^a b Daniel Chirot. Why Some Wars Become Genocidal and Others Don't (PDF). Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 17, 2008.
47. ^ Robert Carrol; Stephen Prickett (1997). The Bible: Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Oxford University Press. p. 337. ISBN 9780192835253. oliver cromwell joshua ireland.
48. ^ "Daniel Chirot - Department of Sociology - University of Washington". soc.washington.edu. Archived from the original on 6 December 2017. Retrieved 25 June 2017.
49. ^ Peters, Edward. "Inquisition", p. 54.
50. ^ this is roughly comparable to the number of people executed for witchcraft in Europe during the same time span as the Inquisition (estimated at c. 40,000–60,000, i.e. roughly ten times higher in a territory with a population roughly ten times higher). Data for executions for witchcraft: Levack, Brian P. (1995). The Witch Hunt in Early Modern Europe (Second Edition). London and New York: Longman, and see Witch trials in Early Modern Europe for more detail.
51. ^ Jose Rogelio Alvarez, ed. Inquisicion (in Spanish). Enciclopedia de Mexico. VII (2000 ed.). Mexico City: Sabeca International Investment Corp. ISBN 1-56409-034-5
52. ^ Chuchiak IV, John F. The Inquisition in New Spain, 1571–1820: A Documentary History Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012, p. 236
53. ^ Saraiva, António José (2001), "Introduction to the English edition", The Marrano Factory: The Portuguese Inquisition and Its New Christians 1536–1765, Brill, p. 9.
54. ^ Murphy, Cullen (2012). God's Jury. New York: Mariner Books – Houghton, Miflin, Harcourt. p. 150.
55. ^ Zimler, Richard (14 September 2005). "Goa Inquisition was most merciless and cruel". Rediff India Abroad (Interview). Retrieved 10 May 2017.
56. ^ Saraiva (2001/1975), The Marrano Factory, p. 107
57. ^ Salomon, H. P. and Sassoon, I. S. D., in Saraiva, Antonio Jose. The Marrano Factory. The Portuguese Inquisition and Its New Christians, 1536–1765 (Brill, 2001 reprint/1975 revision), pp. 345–7.
58. ^ Andrea Del Col: L'Inquisizione in Italia. Milano: Oscar Mondadori, 2010, pp. 779–780. ISBN 978-88-04-53433-4.
59. ^ mostly in the Holy Roman Empire, the British Isles and France, and to some extent in the European colonies in North America; largely excluding the Iberian Peninsula and Italy; "Inquisition Spain and Portugal, obsessed with heresy, ignored the witch craze. In Italy, witch trials were comparatively rare and they did not involve torture and executions." Anne L. Barstow, Witchcraze : a New History of the European Witch Hunts, HarperCollins, 1995.
60. ^ Thurston, Robert W. (2001). Witch, Wicce, Mother Goose: The Rise and Fall of the Witch Hunts in Europe and North America. Edinburgh: Longman. p. 1. ISBN 978-0582438064.
61. ^ Scarre, Geoffrey; Callow, John (2001). Witchcraft and Magic in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century Europe (second ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave. p. 34. ISBN 9780333920824.
62. ^ Scarre & Callow 2001, p. 12.
63. ^ Scarre & Callow 2001, pp. 1, 21.
64. ^ Historical Dictionary of Stuart England, edited by Ronald H. Fritze and William B. Robison. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996. ISBN 978-0-313-28391-8. (p.552).
65. ^ Hutton 2010, p. 247. Scarre and Callow (2001) put forward 40,000 as an estimate for the number killed.(Scarre & Callow 2001, pp. 1, 21) Levack (2006) came to an estimate of 45,000. Levack, Brian (2006). The Witch Hunt in Early Modern EuropeThird Edition. Longman. Page 23. Hutton (2010) estimated that the numbers were between 40,000–50,000,(Hutton 2010, p. 247) Wolfgang Behringer and Lyndal Roper had independently calculated that the number was between 50,000–60,000.(Behringer 2004, p. 149; Roper 2004, pp. 6–7) In an earlier unpublished essay, Hutton counted local estimates, and in areas where estimates were unavailable, he attempted to draw extrapolations from nearby regions with similar demographics and similar attitudes towards witch hunting. "Estimates of Executions (based on Hutton's essay 'Counting the Witch Hunt')"..
66. ^ Bishop, Jordan (2006). "Aquinas on Torture". New Blackfriars. 87 (1009): 229–237. doi:10.1111/j.0028-4289.2006.00142.x.
67. ^ Larissa Tracy, Torture and Brutality in Medieval Literature: Negotiations of National Identity, (Boydell and Brewer Ltd, 2012), 22; "In 1252, Innocent IV licensed the use of torture to obtain evidence from suspects, and by 1256, inquisitors were allowed to absolve each other if they used instruments of torture themselves, rather than relying on lay agents for the purpose...".
68. ^ "Internet History Sourcebooks Project". legacy.fordham.edu. Archived from the original on 2016-03-20. Retrieved 2016-05-23.
69. ^ Peters writes: "When faced with a convicted heretic who refused to recant, or who relapsed into heresy, the inquisitors were to turn him over to the temporal authorities – the "secular arm" – for animadversio debita, the punishment decreed by local law, usually burning to death." (Peters, Edwards. "Inquisition", p. 67.)
70. ^ Lea, Henry Charles. "Chapter VII. The Inquisition Founded". A History of the Inquisition In The Middle Ages. 1. ISBN 978-1-152-29621-3. Obstinate heretics, refusing to abjure and return to the Church with due penance, and those who after abjuration relapsed, were to be abandoned to the secular arm for fitting punishment.
71. ^ Kirsch, Jonathan (2008-09-09). The Grand Inquisitors Manual: A History of Terror in the Name of God. HarperOne. ISBN 978-0-06-081699-5.
72. ^ Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith". Vatican: Author. Retrieved 10 May 2017.
73. ^ Pope Paul VI (7 December 1965), Apostolic letter: Given motu proprio: Integrae servandae, retrieved 10 May 2017
74. ^ B. Hoffman, "Inside Terrorism", Columbia University Press, 1999, pp. 105–120. ISBN 978-0231126991
75. ^ Firth, Raymond (1981) Spiritual Aroma: Religion and Politics. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 83, No. 3, pp. 582–601
76. ^ Jonathan Ebel (2011). Andrew R. Murphy (ed.). The Blackwell Companion to Religion and Violence. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 154–155. ISBN 978-1405191319.
77. ^ "Paganism and Rome". Penelope.uchicago.edu. Retrieved 2012-11-13.
78. ^ Bernard Hamilton, The Crusades, Sutton Publishing, United Kingdom, 1998. See Chapter 9: Later Crusades
79. ^ "Wound: The Legacy of Native American Schools". Amnesty International USA. Retrieved February 8, 2006". Archived from the original on 2011-05-17.
80. ^ Read, Peter (1981). The Stolen Generations:(bringing them home) The Removal of Aboriginal Children in New South Wales 1883 to 1969 (PDF). Department of Aboriginal Affairs (New South Wales government). ISBN 978-0-646-46221-9. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-04-09.
81. ^ Bhaumik, Subhir (April 18, 2000). "Church backing Tripura rebels". BBC News. Retrieved 2006-08-26.
82. ^ 
    Jump up to:
    ^a b c d Robinson, B. A. (2006). "Christianity and slavery". Retrieved 2007-01-03.
83. ^ Ephesians 6:5–8
84. ^ James Montgomery Boice, Ephesians: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Ministry Resources Library, 1988), 218–219.
85. ^ Catholic Encyclopedia Slavery and Christianity
86. ^ 
    Jump up to:
    ^a b Ostling, Richard N. (2005-09-17). "Human slavery: why was it accepted in the Bible?". Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
87. ^ "Africans and Native Americans", by Jack D. Forbes, p.27
88. ^ Curp, T. David. "A Necessary Bondage? When the Church Endorsed Slavery".
89. ^ Pagden, Anthony (1997-12-22). "The Slave Trade, Review of Hugh Thomas' Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade". The New Republic.
90. ^ Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery ISBN 978-0-691-11436-1 (2003)
91. ^ Lamin Sanneh, Abolitionists Abroad: American Blacks and the Making of Modern West Africa, Harvard University Press ISBN 978-0-674-00718-5 (2001)
92. ^ Ostling, Richard N. (2005-09-17). "Human slavery: why was it accepted in the Bible?". Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
93. ^ Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books.
94. ^ Diamond, Sara, 1998. Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, New York: Guilford Press, p.213.
95. ^ Ortiz, Chris 2007. "Gary North on D. James Kennedy" Archived 2009-10-11 at the Wayback Machine, Chalcedon Blog, 6 September 2007.
96. ^ Nancy Calvert Koyzis (2004). Paul, monotheism and the people of God : the significance of Abraham traditions for early Judaism and Christianity. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-567-08378-4.
97. ^ "The Origins of Christian Anti-Semitism". Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs.
98. ^ "After the evil: Christianity and Judaism in the shadow of the Holocaust", Richard Harries, p. 16, Oxford University Press, 2003
99. ^ Roland Bainton, quoted in Robin Gill, A Textbook of Christian Ethics, 3rd ed, Continuum, 2006, ISBN 0-567-03112-8, p. 194.
100. ^ "No known Christian author from the first centuries approved of Christian participation in battle; citations advocating pacifism are found in → Tertullian, → Origen, Lactantius, and others, and in the testimonies of the martyrs Maximilian and Marcellus, who were executed for refusing to serve in the Roman army. Grounds for opposition to military service included fear of idolatry and the oath of loyalty to Caesar, as well as the basic objection to shedding blood on the battlefield.", Fahlbusch, E., & Bromiley, G. W. (2005). Vol. 4: The encyclopedia of Christianity (2). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill.
101. ^ "Mark Allman – Merrimack College". www.merrimack.edu.
102. ^ Allman, Mark J. (2008). Who Would Jesus Kill?: War, Peace, and the Christian Tradition. Saint Mary's Press.
103. ^  Origen (1885) [248]. Against Celsus . Translated by Crombie, Frederick. VII.XXVI..
104. ^ Stanton, Rachel (21 January 2007). "The Early Church on Violence". Retrieved 10 May 2017.
105. ^ "Clement of Alexandria". earlychristianwritings.com.
106. ^ Osborn, Eric (2003). Tertullian, First Theologian of the West. Cambridge University Press. p. 230. ISBN 978-0-521-52495-7. Tertullian rejects all forms of violence, even killing by soldiers or killing by courts of law, any form of abortion, and even attendance at the amphitheatre.
107. ^ Nicholson, Helen J. (2004). Medieval warfare: theory and practice of war in Europe, 300–1500. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 24. At the beginning of the third century, Tertullian recorded that some Christians did fight, but he indicated that he did not approve. He argued that God's command not to fight overrode Paul's command to obey the authorities that God had appointed. Tertullian observed that one of the last words of Christ before he was led away to be crucified was his instruction that Simon Peter put away his sword.
108. ^ "Members of several small Christian sects who try to literally follow the precepts of Jesus Christ have refused to participate in military service in many nations and they have been willing to suffer the criminal or civil penalties that followed."Encyclopædia Britannica 2004 CD Rom Edition — Pacifism.
109. ^ John Paul II (25 March 1995), Evangelium Vitae, retrieved 10 May 2017
110. ^ "Orthodoxy and Capital Punishment". Incommunion.
111. ^ Speicher, Sara and Durnbaugh, Donald F. (2003), Ecumenical Dictionary:Historic Peace Churches
112. ^ "5 Beliefs That Set the Bruderhof Apart From Other Christians". Newsmax. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
113. ^ King, Jr., Martin Luther; Clayborne Carson; Peter Holloran; Ralph Luker; Penny A. Russell (1992). The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-07950-2.
114. ^ Hood, Helen (2003). "Speaking Out and Doing Justice: It's No Longer a Secret but What are the Churches Doing about Overcoming Violence against Women?"(PDF). EBSCO Publishing. pp. 216–225. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 10, 2011. Retrieved May 19, 2010.

References

• Avalos, Hector. Fighting Words. The Origins of Religious Violence. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005.
• Schwartz, Regina M. The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Further reading

• Bekkenkamp, Jonneke and Sherwood, Yvonne, ed. Sanctified Aggression. Legacies of Biblical and Postbiblical Vocabularies of Violence. London/New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2003.
• Collins, John J. Does the Bible Justify Violence? Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004.
• Hedges, Chris. 2007. American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. Free Press.
• Lea, Henry Charles. 1961. The Inquisition of the Middle Ages. Abridged. New York: Macmillan.
• Kimball, Charles (2013). Jerryson, Michael; Juergensmeyer, Mark; Kitts, Margo (eds.). "Religion and Violence from Christian Theological Perspectives". The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199759996.001.0001. ISBN 9780199759996.
• King, Karen L. (2013). Jerryson, Michael; Juergensmeyer, Mark; Kitts, Margo (eds.). "Christianity and Torture". The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199759996.001.0001. ISBN 9780199759996.
• MacMullen, Ramsay, 1989 "Christianizing the Roman Empire: AD 100–400"
• MacMullen, Ramsay, 1997, "Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries"
• Mason, Carol. 2002. Killing for Life: The Apocalyptic Narrative of Pro-Life Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• McTernan, Oliver J. 2003. Violence in God's name: religion in an age of conflict. Orbis Books.
• Nakashian, Craig M. Warrior Churchmen of Medieval England, 1000-1250: Theory and Reality. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2016
• Thiery, Daniel E. Polluting the Sacred: Violence, Faith and the Civilizing of Parishioners in Late Medieval England. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
• Tyerman, Christopher. 2006. God's War: A New History of the Crusades. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Belknap.
• Zeskind, Leonard. 1987. The ‘Christian Identity’ Movement, [booklet]. Atlanta, Georgia: Center for Democratic Renewal/Division of Church and Society, National Council of Churches.
• Steffen, Lloyd (2013). Jerryson, Michael; Juergensmeyer, Mark; Kitts, Margo (eds.). "Religion and Violence in Christian Traditions". The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199759996.001.0001. ISBN 9780199759996.
• Rodney Stark God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades, HarperOne, 2010,