The Christian Crusades

Dispelling Prevalent Myths About the Crusades

Abstract: The term paper will cover some of the popular myths being used about the crusader era and will shed light on those myths. The popular myths are taken from recent atheist books and blogs along with some additional commonly held myths. The rebuttals I use for these myths are often taken from academic works that predate the use of these myths and yet the myths continue to be used.

Popular myths about the Crusades

Many popular myths about the Crusades pervade popular books and skeptics websites today even though many of the myths have been debunked.  The myths continue to grow and, in popular works, the myths are considered the gospel truth.  In this essay, I will first explore some of the popular myths.  Then, I will provide a brief response to those myths.

Recent articles on the Crusades claim that the goal of the crusades was a quest for new lands[1] and was the first round of European colonialism[2].   Popular atheists, such as Dawkins and Hitchens, claim the motivation for the crusades was to convert the pagans or to kill them.  Hitchens, in his bestselling book God is not Great; How Religion Poisons Everything, claims that religion can’t help itself. “It must seek to interfere with the lives of nonbelievers, or heretics, or adherents of other faiths.”[3] In The God Delusion, author Richard Dawkins makes the outrageous claim, “Christianity, too, was spread by the sword, wielded first by Roman hands after the Emperor Constantine raised it from eccentric cult to official religion, then by the Crusaders, and later by the conquistadores and other European invaders and colonists, with missionary accompaniment.”[4]

Another popular claim is that the crusades were much more barbaric than typical warfare at that time.  Hitchens cites one event, “However, this made no difference during the Crusades, when a papal army set out to recapture Bethlehem and Jerusalem from the Muslims, incidentally destroying many Jewish communities and sacking heretical Christian Byzantium along the way, and inflicted a massacre in the narrow streets of Jerusalem, where, according to the hysterical and gleeful chroniclers, the spilled blood reached up to the bridles of the horses.”[5]  Atheist blogger Austin Cline claims, “The Crusades were an incredibly violent undertaking, even by medieval standards.”[6]

The crusades are often cited as an example of religion being the cause of violence.  Sam Harris claims religion is a well-spring of violence[7] Cline claims the crusades were, “Hardly a noble quest in foreign lands, the Crusades represented the worst in religion generally and in Christianity specifically.”[8]  Atheist Massimo Pigliucci blogs that religion is the cause of violence and cites the crusades as an example, “Just look at the history of all three Abrahamic faiths: Jews used to go around pillaging, raping and merrily engaging in (god-sanctioned) genocide; we owe to Christians the invention of the words crusade and inquisition.”[9]  Sam Harris goes so far as to claim “There is no telling what our world would now be like had some great kingdom of reason emerged at the time of the Crusades and pacified the credulous multitudes of Europe and the Middle East.”[10]

The crusades are often claimed to be the worst violence ever.  Hitchens questions, “When the worst has been said about the…Crusades…is it not true that secular and atheist regimes have committed crimes and massacres that are, in the scale of things, at least as bad if not worse?”[11]  The answer he gives to his question is no.  Pigliucci, goes further and claims that religions, other than Christianity, Islam and Judaism, are far more peaceful.[12]

These claims about the crusades have led the word ‘crusade’ to become taboo.  One helpful atheist advises, “Churches should not use the word Crusade because it turns people off because of it’s negative connotations.”[13]  Some Christians have accepted the claims and have tried to distance their friendlier version of Christianity from the, “…intolerant, politicized, ugly, right-wing…”[14] Christianity.  Anonymous atheist blogger “vjack” agrees with the negative connotations of the word ‘crusade’ and cautions other atheist not to forget the crusades or stop using the word.  His conspiracy laden fear is that if they forget the crusades happened they will happen again because, “The consolidation of political power, military strength, and massive wealth into Christian extremist hands is something that should terrify every atheist.”[15]

Dispelling myths about the Crusades

Words have meaning and some words have emotional baggage that gives them more persuasion power when used. Think about it; when you hear the word ‘crusade’ what images are conjured up in your mind?  Do you think of greedy nobles looking to grab lands from the peaceful Muslims and other Christians?  Do you think of an unprovoked and extraordinary brutal war?  Do you see another episode of Jewish genocide?  Do you imagine being given the choice to convert or die?  Do you think of the worst episode of violence in human history?  Misconceptions about the crusades have given this word the emotional baggage that is often used as a coercive rhetorical device for anti-Christian arguments.

There is a subtle and underlining claim with all of these statements against the Crusades that implies that Christianity is falsified somehow.  Christianity obviously can’t be true because of all the violence it causes is the unspoken claim.  No rational argument is now needed; one simply needs to remind the Christian of the crusades and that should be the end of the argument.  However, a word with emotional baggage and an implied refutation is not rational discourse.  It simply is coercive and vacuous rhetoric designed to influence rather than inform.

As with any investigation into history, we run the risk of oversimplifying the issues involved or looking at the events from one side only, either seeing only the good actions or only the bad actions.  The crusades are no different.  My attempt here is not to dismiss any of the wrongs committed by crusades and only look at what could be called the good.  I instead intend to look at both sides equitably.

Now, in order to dispel these myths, we need to start with a good definition of what exactly is a crusade.  Jonathan Riley-Smith defines the crusades as, “a…expedition authorized by the pope on Christ’s behalf, the leading participants in which took vows and consequently wore crosses and enjoyed the privileges of protection at home and the indulgence, which, when the campaign was not destined for the East, was equated with that granted to crusaders to the Holy Land.”[16] Knowing what the crusades were does not, necessarily, tell us anything about the motivations.  For that we must dig into history and the situations that were prevalent at the time. 

It is important to note that, before the rise of Islam, the Christian world covered from Britton to the Middle East, along the North coast of Africa, along the Nile all the way to Axum, areas in the Arabian Peninsula, and from modern day Turkey to Baghdad. In 700 AD Christianity covered more area than the Roman Empire. By 850, over 100 years after the Death of Mohammad, the Muslims had conquered the Middle East from India to Turkey, and across North Africa and into most of Spain.  It is no small fact that over half of the Christian world was then under Muslim control.  The rapid rise of Islam would not have gone unnoticed and without concern.  Thomas Madden makes the point, “It is important to remember that in the Middle Ages the West was not a powerful, dominant culture venturing into a primitive or backward region. It was the Muslim East that was powerful, wealthy and opulent. Europe was the Third World.”[17]

By the time of the first crusade the Seljuk Turks had made their way across Anatolian peninsula and threated Constantinople.  With no other alternative, the Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comneus, sent a letter to Pope Urban II requesting help from the Western Empire.[18]  Pope Urban II headed the call and preached the first crusade at the Council of Clermont on November 27, 1095.[19]  Urban II asked those there to come to the aid of their fellow Christians against the atrocities of the Turks. Concerning the Turks he spoke, “They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for a while with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them.”[20]  Clearly the concern was that if they did not push back the Turks they would continue on into Europe.  The impetus was to prevent further encroachment and to regain lost lands, not for themselves but for the Byzantines.  In short, the crusades were provoked.

The charge is often given that the crusades were the first round of European colonialism.  Again this charge is meritless.  Thomas F. Madden, chair of St. Louis University's history department, crusade expert and author of "A Concise History of the Crusades," agrees that the Crusaders were a defensive force that did not intend profit from their ventures by earthly riches or land.  Some may suggest that it was the motivation of Bohemond I, Prince of Taranto, during the first crusade when he refused to relinquish Antioch to Byzantine control.  Bohemond refused to relinquish Antioch to Alexius and the Byzantines because he felt they had forfeited their rights to Antioch when they turned their back on it and did not assist the crusader army when they needed it most.[21]  Of course not all crusaders agreed with Bohemond.  Raymond IV of Count of Toulouse, stressed that “no crusader should be allowed to renounce that sacred vow for temporal gain.”[22] In fact, when the crusades were complete most of the crusades went home with very few remaining to govern their newly acquired lands.[23]

James Ludlow relates the required motivation that was adopted by the Council of Clermont, “As already indicated, one very important privilege is to be found in the list of canons adopted by the Council of Clermont, namely, that an indulgence was to be granted to all who should go to liberate Jerusalem, provided they were motivated not by desire for honor or money, but by devotion only.”[24]  Simply put, the motivation of a very small minority of crusaders may have been for temporal gain while most of them considered it a duty and devotion.

You might agree about the motivation but still take exception to the brutal means the crusaders used.  Often cited is the massacre of Jerusalem in 1099. Unfortunately a chronicler at the time used hyperbole to greatly exaggerate the claims of the bloodshed.  Often this account is read as literal gospel truth and not the exaggeration that it clearly is.  There wasn’t enough people in the entire Middle East to fill the City with blood up to the horses’ bridal. It is important to remember the use of hyperbole in warfare and the context of warfare in the period.     The exaggerated claim of blood up to a horse’s bridal, an obvious reference to Revelation 14:19-20, may have served as fodder for psychological warfare. 

Putting fear into the hearts of your enemy is a well-known psychological warfare tactic. Terrorizing and horrifying your enemy as a means of demoralizing them is part and parcel of any tactical warfare.  Grandiose claims of Spartan brutality would put such fear into any opposing army that often when the Spartans took the field the opposing forces would flee in fear leaving the Spartans with a victory without the need for further bloodshed.  One of the best examples in history was Vlad III Dracula that earned him the title Vlad the Impaler.  “According to historical accounts, when the Shah-in Shah's forces encountered the massive field of impaled soldiers captured from previous encounters with Vlad's army, he turned back.”[25]  This allowed the outnumbered forces of Vlad to withstand the overwhelming Turkish and Ottoman forces.  Exaggerated claims have been utilized in warfare as a means to inspire troops to continue on and to put fear into the hearts of the enemy in an attempt to limit further bloodshed.

The rules of war for the time would have seen it a justified if the whole city was put to death for resisting a besieging army.  Madden puts it this way,

“The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asian civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces. That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well. That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers. If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender.  In the case of Jerusalem, the defenders had resisted right up to the end. They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force from Egypt could arrive. They were wrong. When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack. Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free.”[26]

By today’s standards we may think of this tactic as being unnecessarily brutal.  Is it really more brutal than the warfare today?  One need not look farther than the justification of dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  As terrible as those events were, the number of casualties were far less than would have been had the United States had to invade mainland Japan.  As terrific as the bombs were the result was a speedy conclusion to the war.

Madden concludes, “It is worth noting that in those Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders the people were left unmolested, retained their property and were allowed to worship freely.”[27]  Simply put, incentives for non-resistance were used to lower casualties in ancient times and this practice is still in use today. I t is also worthy to note that often a single atrocious act is often cited as an example of the normal behavior of the crusaders instead of for the abnormal behavior that it is.  For example, Atheist Austin Cline says, “When Muslim cities were captured by Christian crusaders, it was standard operating procedure for all inhabitants – no matter what their age – to be summarily killed.” [Emphasis added][28]  This was not the standard operating procedure for crusaders and irresponsible to make such an outrageous claim. 

These are common warfare tactics, not religious or secular practices.  Richard Dawkins rightly notes, “Cruel and evil people can be found in every century and of every persuasion.”[29]  If true, he has no legitimate reason to lay the charge of brutality because of religion at the feet of Christianity.  It wasn’t religious purposes for any so called brutal tactics, it was simply the accepted art of war.  William Cavanaugh has recently made the argument that the religious violence is a myth because it simplifies a complex set of social, economic and political factors that lead to violence.  Indeed it seems bias for an Atheist to claim all violence is caused by religion as if institutionalized atheism is innocent.  Cavanaugh theorizes that this is an attempt to perpetuate the myth that religion creates violence while making the atheists out to be the rational and peaceful people. Cavanaugh states, “The myth of religious violence helps to construct and marginalize a religious Other, prone to fanaticism, to contrast with the rational, peace-making, secular subject.”[30] Further he states, “These arguments are part of a broader Enlightenment narrative that has invented a dichotomy between the religious and the secular and constructed the former as an irrational and dangerous impulse that must give way in public to rational, secular forms of power.”[31]

It is also important to note that nowhere did Jesus Christ condone such actions.  If Christians did involve themselves in the practices of warfare that we think are not very Christian, like maybe it is precisely because they are not acting like Christians and not that secularism is more enlightened.  Cavanaugh makes the point that, “it may be the case that the Crusader has misappropriated the true message of Christ, but one cannot therefore excuse Christianity of all responsibility.”[32] It is one of the doctrines of Christianity that all people sin, even Christians.  Although Christians sinning is consistent with Christian doctrine it does not excuse or condone such behavior. 

It is also important to note that the Crusader army was not made up of all Christians.  The reformer Martin Luther raises this objection in his work Vom Kriege wider die Türken (On War Against the Turk).   Luther claims, “It is against [Christ’s] name, because in such an army there are scarcely five Christians, and perhaps worse people in the eyes of God than are the Turks; and yet they would all bear the name of Christ.”[33]  In a way Luther is objecting to the religious labeling for this war.  The crusades being a defensive war need not drag Christ’s name into it in order to justify the call to war.

What about Christians who sought to eliminate the enemy at home like Count Emicho Leiningen in the first crusade or Radulf during the second crusade?  Dan Cohn-Shebok author of The Crucified Jew, wrote, “The Crusades and their aftermath thus brought into focus Christian contempt for the Jews who stubbornly clung to their ancestral Faith.”[34]  The crusades are often viewed as part of an ongoing genocide of Jews by Christians.

First it is important to note that the crusade was never called against the Jew.  Jonathan Riley Smith notes, “No crusade was actually proclaimed against the Jews, although crusade preaching unleashed feelings that the Church could not control.”[35]  Second they attempted to stop rogue crusaders from harming the Jews.  During the second crusade Bernard of Clairvaux set off to stop Radulf’s attacks against the Jews.  “Repeatedly, Barnard stressed that the Jews were not to be persecuted.”[36]  In short, the church never called for a crusade against the Jew and they sought to stop those who did.

Conclusion

In this essay I have examined some of the more popular myths about the crusades and have attempted to shed new light on the truth about the subject.  I think Stark sums up my conclusions best when he writes, “The Crusades were not unprovoked. They were not the first round of European colonialism. They were not conducted for land, loot, or converts. The crusaders were not barbarians who victimized the cultivated Muslims. They sincerely believed that they served in God’s battalions.”[37] I would add to his conclusion that the crusades were never called against the Jew.

As for Christian morality, Christians sometimes sin, and this in no way excuses any sinful actions.  And if a Christian does not follow the teachings of Christ then he/she may be a hypocrite but that does not mean Christianity causes violence or somehow falsify the Christian worldview.  If I were a smoker who smoked 5 packs of cigarettes a day and I told you that smoking was harmful to your health it would make me a pretty big hypocrite.  My hypocrisy would in no way falsify my claim that smoking is harmful to your health.

It is my hope that I have shed some light on the issue of the crusades and some of the popular claims and implications that are taken for granted in our popular culture today.  With that I also hope people will evaluate explore those claims as they carefully consider and weigh multiple sides of this issue.

Endnotes

 

Book Review:

The Water That Divides (Mentor Imprint), by Donald Bridge and David Phypers

I have to say, this is an excellent book. It gives you the history of baptism and chronologically follows the changes of views on baptism throughout Christian history. Not only that, it gives you the context of the situations that played a role in the changes throughout the centuries.

For example, I did not know that the controversy between infant baptism and adult-only baptism goes back to the very earliest church fathers. The controversy is, by no means, a recent issue of contention.

I was also surprised to learn that the controversy between submersion and sprinkling is also not a recent debate; it goes back to the early church fathers as well. It is documented that they did both. For some early churches, baptism would often include exorcism as well as anointing with oil. You get the impression that baptism may have been unique to each group, maybe, based on their culture. You could make the case it is that way today.

This information has changed my point of view. Not that I have changed my view on baptism, but it has made me less dogmatic about my position. Many theologians, such as C S Lewis, G K Chesterton & James Packer, feel the different views should be held on creative tension and not destructive competition. I think that might be the answer. I mean, what about letting other explore the issue for themselves? Maybe a person’s baptism is part of their story, part of their relationship with God, and part of their unique journey and revelation.

"In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas." "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity." - Attributed to St. Augustine.

One of the important points brought out in the book was the use of the word sacrament in conjunction with baptism with the early church fathers. Because the term has very specific and legal connotations in ancient Latin, it may help us understand how the early church fathers viewed baptism.

The word sacrament comes from the Latin word sacramentumj which in ancient times, it was a deposit of money for a legal case held in escrow at a temple or it was also an oath of allegiance for soldiers. In either case, the word sacramentum involved a religious ceremony in a sacred place. Augustine defined sacramentum as 'a sign of a sacred reality'. By the second century, baptism was called a sacramentum. This is an import fact in understanding the early Churches view and understanding of Baptism.

This early understanding of the word flows through even to today. In the sacrament of Baptism in the Church of England, the ceremony follows like a Roman soldier's oath of allegiance. The person performing the Baptism will say:

"Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified."

In reply the person being baptized will say:

"Fight valiantly under the banner of Christ against sin, the world, and the devil, and continue his faithful soldiers and servants to the end of your lives."

This understanding of the word sacramentum supports the case that baptism is a response to faith in Christ and is a way people can signify their belief or pledge allegiance to Christ.

Does baptism have anything to do with a person’s salvation? If faith is most important why baptize?

To answer why we baptize is easy, because Jesus said too. (see Matthew 28:19) End of case on that question. However, it leaves behind an issue that many people feel strongly about. Mainly, that baptism, in some way, plays an important role in a person’s salvation. If the original meaning for baptism was that it was a sign or pledge, where did the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation come from?

Think of it this way, if you believe Jesus is the Messiah and savior and He says to go and make disciples by baptizing them, why wouldn't you? Baptism, then, is the obedience of faith so closely linked that you almost can't have one without the other. (Almost) Not that baptism bestows salvation, but that it is an evidence for salvation.

This intimacy between baptism and faith leads to some confusion. In the 12th century, sacraments, because they were so closely linked with faith, began to be described as a means of grace. This is often described as 'ex opere operato' or 'by the work being worked' or 'baptism saves you,’ which means that baptism automatically saves you. People often say that this is what Catholics believe. However, from the Middle Ages on, the Catholic Church has not held to this view. For Catholics today, belief in the doctrine 'non ponentibus obicem' (in case of those who place no impediment). This basically means that baptism brings God's grace so long as there is nothing to stop it, such as a lack of faith.

Thus, calling baptism a sacrament, gives us some insight into the intended meaning of those who used the word so long ago.

On my recent trip to Atlanta, Georgia, a friend and I were walking around exploring the city. Our walk took an unexpected turn when a Good Samaritan requesting spare change asked us if we were going to the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial. We had not planned to because, for some reason, I thought the memorial was in Alabama. I am not really even sure why I thought it was in Alabama. At any rate, we found out it was there and we decided it was a must-see. It seems that divine providence guided our path.

As I passed through what appeared to be a rundown part of town, we happened upon a pan handler whose only request was food. I always feel hesitant to help out aggressive pan handlers, especially when they open with the line, “Don’t worry, I ain’t going to mug you.” We know he would not be buying booze if we bought him the food rather than give him cash. We obliged his request and went to a little chicken restaurant and bought him food. He led us to the restaurant and, for that reason I did sense danger and was wary. I am in security and I was calculating my risk, continuously. However, with a little prayer and thinking thoughts like Matthew West's song "The Motions" or Josh Wilson's song "I Refuse," we proceeded to serve our fellow man, my neighbor.

After we completed the purchase, we left the restaurant and reentered the rundown neighborhood. In less than a block, the neighborhood changed dramatically. As I entered into the National Park and Preservation area I felt as if I was moving from hostility to a place of peace. The pot-holed, dirty streets and rundown buildings were replaced with well-trimmed lawns, maintained buildings and clean streets. The symbolism of that place and my soul were in sync.

We were exploring the grounds when I saw a very recognizable blue and white sign with the words Ebenezer Baptist Church. I couldn’t wait any longer; I eagerly made my way to the church. I was taken aback when I entered the church. It was such a humble place, simple and small. It had decorations such as stained glass however, the overriding aspect was functionality. It was a humble building that you might otherwise take as run-of-the-mill, yet this church was the epicenter for the civil-rights movement.

I walked into the church and took a seat on one of the pews. I sat there in quiet reflection. Yes, it is a simple building. Then, I realized it is not the building that made a difference, it was a man with a dream that made all the difference in the world. I sat that and wondered what it would have been like one Sunday morning listening to a man with a dream some said was too big.

“Everybody can be great, because everybody can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve… You don’t have to know Einstein’s theory of relativity to serve… You only need a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love. And you can be that servant.” Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I realized this place and, more importantly, a poor preacher from Atlanta are significant to African American history, United States history and Church history. How many people can you say that about? I know Protestants don't have saints, but if they ever do, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. needs to be on the top of the list. I have to admit that I am happy to see that our government recognizes the significance of Martin Luther King Jr.

For me, I won’t forget the day I sat where he once preached the true Christian principles of love and peace instead of hate and revenge. When I see him in heaven someday, I will thank him for his service. He has inspired me, I hope he inspires you.

Have you read lately on a billboard or in a magazine ad that the Judgment Day will be May 21, 2011? I have so many issues with this I don’t even know where to begin.
According to a pamphlet I picked up at a gas station, God has given us a head- up on the Day of Judgment. According to the pamphlet:

“..The Holy Bible tells us that Holy God is a God of great mercy, compassion and love. That is why He has given us in advance of the destruction the exact time of the Day of Judgment.”

The Bible does state that God has great mercy, compassion and love. However, the pamphlet does not say where exactly the Bible says that He give us the exact time of the Day of Judgment.

As you read further, you find that they quote 2 Peter 3:8 and as soon as you see that, you know where they are going with this. They take the passage, literally, to mean that one of God’s days is 1000 of our years. But if you read further to 2 Peter 3:10 it states the day will come like a ‘thief’. Given the context of the discourse, I would tend to lean toward a metaphorical figure of speech for understanding 2 Peter 3:8. Be that as it may, let’s read further to see what they do with a literal, out of context, interpretation of this passage.

Next, the pamphlet takes God’s warning of impending judgment from Genesis 7:4 and Genesis 7:10-11, where God says he will make it rain for 40 days and nights, to mean that in 7000 years God will destroy the earth with fire for good. (Side bar: 2 Peter 3:7 says that the first destruction was by water and was Noah’s flood and the second destruction would be by fire.) Here is what the pamphlet says:

“Therefore, with the correct understanding that the seven days referred to in Genesis 7:4 can be understood as 7,000 years, we learn that when God told Noah there were seven days to escape worldwide destruction, He was also telling the world there would be exactly 7,000 years (one day is as 1,000 years) to escape the wrath of God that would come when He destroys the world on Judgment Day.”

Issue 1 Context
Here, the passages are taken completely out of context. It is obvious to the casual reader of Genesis 7:4 that the seven days were seven, literal, 24 hour days before the rain would start. Genesis confirms this understanding in Genesis 7:10-11 when it states that it ‘came to pass’ that the rains started exactly seven 24 hour days later. What the pamphlet does to get around this is to imply that there are two fulfillments to Genesis 7:4, one, literal, 24 hour days and one, metaphorical, 1000 years per day.

Issue 2 1000 Years
First, I have a difficult time reading 2 Peter 3:8 literally that a day to God is like 1000 years to us. I think when you look at it literally; you have to ignore that God is eternal, which is to say He exists outside of time and space all together. (Read a past blog post on eternal) Time was created and is part of our universe, and as Einstein proved and current astrophysics teaches us, time is relative.

Second, are all those years 360 day years or 365.25 days? Originally, the earth’s orbit was 360 days and at some time in the BC era (I forget when) there was a change in the orbit to 365.25 days. For more information on prophetic years of 360 days I would recommend the book ‘The Coming Prince’ by Sir Robert Anderson; He demonstrates in his book that by using 360 day years you can take, at least on prophecy, from the Old Testament about the first coming of our Messiah to the exact day it was fulfilled in the New Testament.

Issue 3 The Bible as Whole
In order to buy this premise, you have to ignore everywhere else in the Bible that says we won’t know the day or the hour of the end. Here are a few passages: Matthew 25: 13 and Matthew 24:44.

Final Thoughts
This isn’t the first Church or group to give a date. I am betting these guys are wrong too. The problem is, it gives all Christians a bad name. Just look at the comments to a blogger’s post on the Christian obsession with the end.

I do know one other little tidbit from the Bible. In Deut. 18:20-22 the punishment for a false prophet is execution. If the End is May 21, 2011, I am ready. If the End is not May 21, 2011, are they ready?

http://www.thirdeyeconcept.com/news/index.php?topic=9987.0

http://cosmicx.blogspot.com/2009/06/ethiopian-church-leader-to-announce.html

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132067