Freemasonry is not compatible with Christianity or Southern Baptist doctrine.

Freemasonry

By NAMB Staff
During the annual session of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), June 15-17, 1993, the messengers overwhelmingly approved a report on Freemasonry. This action recognized the many charitable endeavors of Freemasonry. It also acknowledged that "many outstanding Christians and Southern Baptists now are, and in the past have been Masons."¹ For the first time in the history of the SBC, however, the Convention concluded, "many tenets and teachings of Freemasonry are not compatible with Christianity or Southern Baptist doctrine."² The report accepted by the Convention identified eight tenets and teachings of Freemasonry that it concluded were not compatible with Christianity.³
First Incompatibility: The prevalent use of offensive concepts, titles, and terms such as "Worshipful Master" for the leader of a lodge; references to their buildings as "mosques," "shrines," or "temples"; and the use of words such as "Abaddon" and "Jah- Bul-On,"⁴ the so-called secret name of God. To many, these terms are not only offensive but sacrilegious.
Biblical Response: The so-called secret name of God illustrates the offensive nature of the above terms for Christians. Albert Pike, one of the most influential Masonic writers, explained the first two syllables of the secret name in his discussion of the old French rituals of Freemasonry:
This is probably Jabulum, incorrectly copied; which, as I have shown, meant 'the product of, that which proceeded, issued or emanated from Om.'
If correctly written, it is compounded of … Yu or Yah-u,… Baal or Bal or Bel, and Om, thus combining the names of the Hebrew, Phoenician and Hindu Deities, to indicate that they are in reality the same. In some old rituals it is Jabulum.⁵
Many leaders of Freemasonry confuse pagan deities with the true God of the Bible. The Christian Scriptures never represent pagan deities as simply different representations of the one true God. The Bible rejects all pagan deities as false gods and goddesses. Exodus 20:4-5 states: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." The Bible also rejects the idea that idolaters worship the true God but know Him by a different name. Israel used the correct personal name for God, yet God rejected their worship because of their use of an idol.
He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt." When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD." So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.'"
"I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation" (Ex. 32:4- 10).⁶
Non-Christian religions recognize many different gods and goddesses, but none of these are a representation of the true God of the Bible. All pagan deities are false gods and must be rejected by Christians. The gods and goddesses of the non-Christian religions are different in nature and character from the biblical God. The differences are far greater and more significant than the terminology or name used to refer to God. No Christian should have any part in a ritual that honors or glorifies a pagan deity.
The 31st degree of the Scottish Rite Southern Jurisdiction is especially troubling for Christians because of the honor and glory it attributes to Egyptian deities. The following quotes are from the official Masonic commentary on the Scottish Rite degrees:
The second section takes place in a re-creation of the Court of the Dead in Egyptian mythology, a place where judgment is rendered on the worthiness of a recently deceased man to enter into the kingdom of the gods. This section of the ritual relies heavily on The Book of the Dead.
The candidate is brought into the Court of the Dead to be judged for actions while living and to determine if he deserves to dwell among the gods. His escort is Horus. Isis, Horus' mother, speaks first, inquiring whose ka has come to be judged.
Through Horus, the candidate claims to have led the most virtuous of lives. The gods express their hope that he speaks the truth. They ask him to approach the balance and stand near the body that was his in life.
Isis now directs the candidate to the altar of the great god Khem, the source of life. Here she inquires about the honesty of the deceased through six questions. Thoth again records the answers.
The answers to all of the specific questions before the altars of various deities are now thrown upon the balance, making the pans nearly equal.
Osiris, having once been a man and subject to the passions and weaknesses of human existence, knows that the other gods cannot appreciate human fallibility. He renders the final judgment-this man is worthy of admittance into the realm of everlasting light and rest and peace.⁷
The above reference to the Egyptian god Osiris goes so far as to attribute to him the same qualities and preeminence that the Bible assigns to Christ Jesus.⁸ Any participation by Christians in such rituals (even by proxy) is inexcusable. Joshua 23:7 states: "Do not associate with these nations that remain among you; do not invoke the names of their gods or swear by them."
Second Incompatibility: The use of archaic, offensive rituals and so-called "bloody oaths" or "obligations," among these being that promised by the Entered Apprentice:
"All this I most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, . . . binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my throat cut from ear to ear, my tongue torn out by its roots, and buried in the sands of the sea, at low water mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-five hours, should I, in the least, knowingly or wittingly violate or transgress this my Entered Apprentice obligation."
Or that of the Fellow Craft degree:
"All this I most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, . . . binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my left breast torn open, my heart plucked from thence, and given to the beast of the field and the birds of the air as prey, should I, in the least, knowingly or wittingly, violate or transgress this my Fellow Craft obligation."
Or that of the Master Mason:
"All this I most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, . . . binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels torn from thence and burned to ashes, and these scattered before the four winds of heaven, that no more remembrance might be had among men or Masons of so vile a wretch as I should be, should I, in the least, knowingly or wittingly violate or transgress this my Master Mason obligation. So help me God and keep me steadfast."
Or that of other advanced degrees with required rituals considered by many to be pagan and incompatible with Christian faith and practice.
Even though these oaths, obligations, and rituals may or may not be taken seriously by the initiate, it is inappropriate for a Christian to "sincerely promise and swear," with a hand on the Holy Bible, any such promises or oaths, or to participate in any such pagan rituals.⁹
Biblical Response: Both Jesus and the apostle James taught that Christians should avoid the kind of extravagant oaths found in the rituals of Freemasonry. Christians should simply let their "yes"be "yes," and their "no" mean "no." In Matthew 5:34-37, Jesus taught the following:
But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Likewise, in his epistle, James wrote: "Above all, my brothers, do not swear-not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned" (Jas. 5:12).
The oaths required by Freemasonry are far worse than the examples the New Testament warns its readers against making. The Entered Apprentice swears under no fewer penalties than that of having his "throat cut from ear to ear," and his "tongue torn out by its roots, and buried in the sands of the sea." In the Fellow Craft degree, he swears under no less penalty than that of having his "left breast torn open," his "heart plucked from thence" and "given to the beast of the field and the birds of the air as prey." The candidate for the Mason degree swears under no fewer penalties than that of having his "bowels torn from thence and burned to ashes, and these scattered before the four winds of heaven."
Some Masons claim that the candidates for the degrees do not take these oaths seriously and, therefore, the oaths are compatible with Christian teaching. However, the Bible warns that oaths should be taken seriously and not given rashly. Leviticus 5:4 says, "Or if a person thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil-in any matter one might carelessly swear about-even though he is unaware of it, in any case when he learns of it he will be guilty."
Third Incompatibility: The recommended readings, in pursuance of advanced degrees, of religions and philosophies, which are undeniably pagan and/or occultic, such as much of the writings of Albert Pike, Albert Mackey, Manly Hall, Rex Hutchens, W. L .Wilmshurst, and other such authors; along with their works, such as Morals and Dogma, A Bridge to Light, An Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry, and The Meaning of Masonry.
Biblical Response: Several of these Masonic writers deny the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. For example, Rex Hutchens wrote:
The purpose of teaching the concept of a Messiah in Freemasonry is to point out its near universality in the well-developed religions of the ancient world. We see references to Dionysius of the Greeks, Sosiosch of the Persians, Krishna of the Hindus, Osiris of the Egyptians, Jesus of the Christians. The purpose of these varying cultures' messiahs was to find in human form a source of intercession with Deity; in particular one who, as a human, had been tempted and suffered the daily pangs of life and so could be expected to possess a particular sympathy and understanding; in a word, the messiahs expressed hope.¹⁰
In addition, some of these writers confuse false pagan beliefs with the teaching of Christianity. Albert Pike, in the following quote, confused the Christian Trinity with the Hindu Universal Soul: "Behold the True Masonic Trinity; the Universal Soul, the Thought in the Soul, the Word, or Thought expressed; the Three In One, of a Trinitarian Ecossais."¹¹
According to Hutchens, the following pagan deities are mentioned in the ritual of the 31st degree of Scottish Rite Freemasonry, Southern Jurisdiction. (31st degree) "The Egyptian deities present in the hall are: (1) Osiris: the Lord and Judge of the dead; (2) Atum: called the 'Father of Souls'; (3) Ma: goddess of Truth and Justice whose image weighs upon one side of the balance; (4) Thoth: Scribe of the gods; (5) Anubis: Conductor of Souls; son of Osiris by his sister Nephthys; (6) Horus: son of Osiris, who presents the deceased to his father; (7) Isis: wife and sister of Osiris, mother of Horus; (8) Nephthys: sister of Isis and Osiris, mother of Anubis by Osiris; (9) Four sons of Horus: Kebhsenuf,Tua-mutef, Hapi and Amset.¹²
Pike even compared the Bible with the occultic Kabalah, which he apparently considered superior to the Bible.
All truly dogmatic religions have issued from the Kabalah and return to it: everything scientific and grand in the religious dreams of all the illuminati, Jacob Boehme, Swedenborg, Saint-Martin, and others, is borrowed from the Kabalah; all the Masonic associations owe to it their Secrets and their Symbols.
The Kabalah alone consecrates the alliance of the Universal Reason and the Divine Word; it establishes, by the counterpoises of two forces apparently opposite, the eternal balance of being; it alone reconciles Reason with Faith, Power with Liberty, Science with Mystery; it has the keys of the Present, the Past, and the Future.
The Bible, with all the allegories it contains, expresses, in an incomplete and veiled manner only, the religious science of the Hebrews.¹³
The SBC Report on Freemasonry correctly identifies these "recommended readings" as "undeniably pagan and/or occultic."¹⁴
Fourth Incompatibility: The reference to the Bible placed on the altar of the lodge as the "furniture of the lodge," comparing it to the square and compass rather than giving it the supreme place in the lodge.
Biblical Response: Albert Pike identified the Bible as part of the furniture of the lodge in his book Morals And Dogma Of The Ancient And Accepted Scottish Rite Of Freemasonry. He wrote:
The Holy Bible, Square, and Compasses, are not only styled the Great Lights in Masonry, but they are also technically called the Furniture of the Lodge; and, as you have seen, it is held that there is no Lodge without them. This has sometimes been made a pretext for excluding Jews from our Lodges, because they cannot regard the New Testament as a holy book. The Bible is an indispensable part of the furniture of a Christian Lodge, only because it is the sacred book of the Christian religion. The Hebrew Pentateuch in a Hebrew Lodge, and the Koran in a Mohammedan one, belong on the Altar; and one of these, and the Square and Compass, properly understood, are the Great Lights by which a Mason must walk and work.¹⁵
Freemasonry has no commitment to the Bible as the unique Word of God. It happily substitutes non-Christian scriptures when Christians are not the majority of a lodge.
Fifth Incompatibility: The prevalent use of the term "light," which some may understand as a reference to salvation rather than knowledge or truth.
Biblical Response: In commenting on the Christian interpretation of the Blue degrees in Freemasonry, Pike wrote:
Notwithstanding the death of the Redeemer, man can be saved only by faith, repentance, and reformation.
Having repented and reformed, and bound himself to the service of God by a firm promise and obligation, the light of Christian hope shines down into the darkness of the heart of the humble penitent, and blazes upon his pathway to Heaven. And this is symbolized by the candidate's being brought to light, after he is obligated, by the Worshipful Master, who in that is a symbol of the Redeemer, and so brings him the light, with the help of the brethren, as He taught the Word with the aid of the Apostles.¹⁶
In the above quote, the concepts of light and salvation are closely related. This quote also reveals that many Masonic writers include reformation (good works) as one of the requirements for salvation. However, the Bible clearly states that good works are not a requirement for salvation. ¹⁷
Sixth Incompatibility: The implication that salvation may be attained by one's good works, implicit in the statement found in some Masonic writings that "Masonry is continually reminded of that purity of life and conduct which is necessary to obtain admittance into the Celestial Lodge above where the Supreme Architect of the Universe presides." Even though many Masons understand that the "purity of life and conduct" can only be achieved through faith in Jesus Christ, others may be led to believe they can earn salvation by living a pure life with good conduct.
Biblical Response: According to Pike, the 25th degree ". . . teaches the necessity of reformation as well as repentance, as a means of obtaining mercy and forgiveness, . . ."18 In his commentary on the 27th degree, Hutchens wrote: "Constans refuses the monk's arguments, trusting in a God of love who will recognize his honor and service to others as a noble path of salvation."19 Likewise, in concerning the 31st degree, Hutchens stated: "The candidate is brought into the Court of the Dead to be judged for actions while living and to determine if he deserves to dwell among the gods. His escort is Horus. Isis, Horus' mother, speaks first, inquiring whose ka has come to be judged."²⁰
The teaching that meritorious deeds can make one acceptable to God is common in many false religions. The Bible, however, warns that there is no deed that can make a sinner acceptable to God. Only the grace of God that comes through faith in Jesus Christ can save those under the judgment of sin. The addition of works to faith as a requirement of salvation is contrary to the teaching of the Bible. The following Scriptures illustrate this: Romans 3:28:"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." Romans 4:4-5:"Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." Romans 11:6:"And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace." Ephesians 2:8-9:"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast." Titus 3:5:"He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit."
Seventh Incompatibility: The heresy of universalism (the belief all people will eventually be saved), which permeates the writings of many Masonic authors, which is a doctrine inconsistent with New Testament teaching.
Biblical Response: Many Masonic writings can be interpreted as endorsing universalism. Pike wrote, "It is the fine dream of the greatest of the Poets, that Hell, become useless, is to be closed at length, by the aggrandizement of Heaven; that the problem of Evil is to receive its final solution, and Good alone, necessary and triumphant, is to reign in Eternity."²¹
Even more prominent in Freemasonry is the false teaching of inclusivism, the belief that followers of non-Christian religions will also be saved. Freemasonry holds out the promise of salvation to all worthy Masons regardless of the deity they worship. The Muslim or Hindu member of the lodge is on the same spiritual level as the believer in Jesus Christ. According to Hutchens, "Masonry is tolerant, even supportive, of the most diverse religious beliefs."²²
Pike likewise argued that no religion can claim to have exclusivity to the truth, nor can any religion claim to be superior to another.
Toleration, holding that every other man has the same right to his opinion and faith that we have to ours; liberality, holding that as no human being can with certainty say, in the clash and conflict of hostile faiths and creeds, what is truth, or that he is surely in possession of it, so every one should feel that it is quite possible that another equally honest and sincere with himself, and yet holding the contrary opinion, may himself be in possession of the truth, and that whatever one firmly and conscientiously believes, is truth, to him."²³
Inclusivism denies the teaching of the New Testament that only those who place their faith in Jesus Christ will be saved. The following passages teach this biblical truth: John 3:36:"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." John 14:6: "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" Acts 4:12:"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." First Corinthians 3:11:"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ." First Timothy 2:5:"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." First John 5:12:"He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."
Eighth Incompatibility: The refusal of most lodges (although not all) to admit for membership African-Americans.
Biblical Response: The Bible teaches that all men and women are created in the image of God. Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." According to Genesis 9-11, all the races of humanity scattered throughout the world are made in the image of God. For example, Genesis 9:6 states, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." The context (Genesis 10- 11) reveals that this prohibition applies to all of the races of humanity scattered throughout the world.
The New Testament reveals that Jesus rejected the racism of His day. John 4:9 indicates that Jesus discarded the racial prejudices of the Jews towards the Samaritans. "The Samaritan woman said to him, 'You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?' (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.)"The apostle Peter, who struggled with the sin of racism throughout his life, stated in Acts 10:28,"You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean." Racism should be rejected wherever it is found, whether it is discovered in the lodge or in the church.
Summary Statement on Freemasonry
There are eight major concerns that the Southern Baptist Convention has expressed about the teachings and practices of Freemasonry. These are:
(1) Freemasonry uses offensive, non-biblical, and blasphemous terms relating to God.
(2) Freemasonry insists on the use of "bloody oaths" or obligations, which are strictly forbidden by the Bible (cf. Matt. 5:34-37).
(3) Freemasonry urges that occultic and/or pagan readings be used, and that their teachings be appropriated in interpreting such concepts as the Trinity.
(4) Freemasonry includes the Bible as part of the "furniture of the lodge," but only as an equal with non-Christian symbols and writings.
(5) Freemasonry misuses the term "light" to refer to moral "reformation" as a means to salvation.
(6) Freemasonry teaches that salvation may be attained by "good works" and not through faith in Christ alone.
(7) Freemasonry advocates in many of its writings the non-biblical teachings of universalism.
(8) In some of its lodges, Freemasonry discriminates against nonwhites.
While it is clear that some Christians, moral persons, and outstanding government leaders have been and are members of the Freemasonic movement, several points of the lodge's teachings are non-biblical and non-Christian. And, while Freemasonry encourages and supports charitable activities, it contains both multireligious and inclusivistic teachings that are not Christian in its religious instruction.
Taking the above into consideration, and being consistent with our denomination's historic deep conviction regarding both the priesthood of the believer and the autonomy of the local church, we recommend that each individual Baptist, as well as each congregation, carefully review the issues of the teachings and practices of Freemasonry. Since, in the final analysis, the Bible alone is the only guide for faith and practice, issues related to Freemasonry and any other fraternal organization, especially secret societies, must be evaluated only in light of the plumb line of Scripture. The divinity and lordship of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith are foundational and nonnegotiable doctrines and the teachings of any organization or society in contradiction to such biblical tenets must be evaluated accordingly. It is, therefore, the duty of every Christian to resist and avoid false teachings to speak the truth in love and to embrace only those doctrines which are revealed in the inerrant Scripture, the Bible (see Matt. 7:24-27; John 7-10; 1 Cor. 10:14; Jude 3).
All Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission.
Notes
¹ Annual of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1993 (Nashville: Executive Committee, Southern Baptist Convention, 1993), p. 224.
² Ibid., p. 225.
³ Ibid., pp. 225-227 lists the following eight tenets of incompatibility.
⁴ This word has several alternative spellings.
⁵ Albert Pike, The Book of the Words (Kila, Mont.: Kessinger Publishing Co., n. d.), p. 151.While some Masons may disagree with Pike's explanation of the secret name for God they cannot deny the tremendous influence of Pike upon Freemasonry in the United States. A reading of A Bridge To Light (an official publication of the Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction) reveals that many modern Masonic leaders also confuse the God of the Bible with pagan deities. See A Bridge To Light, pp. 31, 120, 139.
⁶ The use of the word LORD with all capital letters indicates that the personal name of the God of Israel is used in the Hebrew text..0
⁷ Rex R. Hutchens, A Bridge To Light (Washington, D.C.: The Supreme Council, 1988), p. 299-302.
⁸ See Hebrews 4:15.
⁹ Annual of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1993, p. 226.
¹⁰ Hutchens, A Bridge To Light, pp. 112-113.
¹¹ Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry (Richmond, Va.: L.H. Jenkins, Inc., 1942), p. 575.
¹² Hutchens, A Bridge To Light, p. 300.
¹³ Pike, Morals and Dogma, p. 744.
¹⁴ Annual of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1993, p. 226.
¹⁵ Pike, Morals and Dogma, p. 11.
¹⁶ Ibid., p. 639, emphasis added.
¹⁷ See Romans 3:28; 4:4-5; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-9;Titus 3:5.Also see the discussion in the biblical response concerning the sixth incompatibility.
¹⁸ Pike, Morals and Dogma, p. 435.
¹⁹ Hutchens, A Bridge To Light, p. 243.
²⁰ Ibid., pp. 300-01.
²¹ Pike, Morals and Dogma, p. 847.
²² Hutchens, A Bridge To Light, p. 67.
²³ Pike, Morals and Dogma, p. 160.

The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism

By James Arlandson

Historical facts say that Islam has been imperialistic—and would still like to be, if only for religious reasons. Many Muslim clerics, scholars, and activists, for example, would like to impose Islamic law around the world. Historical facts say that Islam, including Muhammad, launched their own Crusades against Christianity long before the European Crusades.

Today, Muslim polemicists and missionaries, who believe that Islam is the best religion in the world, claim that the West has stolen Islamic lands and that the West (alone) is imperialistic.One hardline Muslim emailer to me said about the developed West and the undeveloped Islamic countries: 'You stole our lands' and then he held his finger on the exclamation key to produce a long string of them.

Thus imperialism, a word that has reached metaphysical levels and that is supposed to stop all debates and answer all questions, explains why Islamic countries have not kept up with the West. The emailer did not look inwardly, as if his own culture and religion may play a role. Instead, it is always the West's fault.

Westerners—even academics—accept the notion that the West alone was aggressive. It seems that Islam is always innocent and passive. It is difficult to uncover the source of this Western self—loathing. It is, however, a pathology that seems to strike Westerners more than other people around the globe. This anti—West pathology shows up in Westerners' hatred for the European Crusades in the Medieval Age.

It must be admitted that there is much to dislike about the European Crusades. If they are contrasted with the mission and ministry of Jesus and the first generations of Christians, then the Crusades do not look so good. But did the Europeans launch the first Crusade in a mindless, bloodthirsty and irrational way, or were there more pressing reasons? Were they the only ones to be militant?

The purpose of this article is not to justify or defend European Crusades, but to explain them, in part—though scholarship can go a long way to defend and justify them

In this article, the word 'crusade' (derived from the Latin word for 'cross') in an Islamic context means a holy war or jihad. It is used as a counterweight to the Muslim accusation that only the Europeans launched crusades. Muslims seem to forget that they had their own, for several centuries before the Europeans launched theirs as a defense against the Islamic expansion.

We will employ a partial timeline spanning up to the first European response to Islamic imperialism, when Pope Urban II launched his own Crusade in 1095. The timeline mostly stays within the parameters of the Greater Middle East. The data in bold print are of special interest for revealing early Islamic atrocities, their belief in heroism in warfare, or politics today.

The Islamic Crusades were very successful. The Byzantines and Persian Empires had worn themselves out with fighting, so a power vacuum existed. Into this vacuum stormed Islam.

After the timeline, two questions are posed, which are answered at length

The Timeline

630 Two years before Muhammad's death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting 'agreements' from northern tribes. They could enjoy the 'privilege' of living under Islamic 'protection' (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax (jizya).

This tax sets the stage for Muhammad's and the later Caliphs' policies. If the attacked city or region did not want to convert to Islam, then they paid a jizya tax. If they converted, then they paid a zakat tax. Either way, money flowed back to the Islamic treasury in Arabia or to the local Muslim governor.

632—634 Under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr the Muslim Crusaders reconquer and sometimes conquer for the first time the polytheists of Arabia. These Arab polytheists had to convert to Islam or die. They did not have the choice of remaining in their faith and paying a tax. Islam does not allow for religious freedom.

633 The Muslim Crusaders, led by Khalid al—Walid, a superior but bloodthirsty military commander, whom Muhammad nicknamed the Sword of Allah for his ferocity in battle (Tabari, 8:158 / 1616—17), conquer the city of Ullays along the Euphrates River (in today's Iraq). Khalid captures and beheads so many that a nearby canal, into which the blood flowed, was called Blood Canal (Tabari 11:24 / 2034—35).

634 At the Battle of Yarmuk in Syria the Muslim Crusaders defeat the Byzantines. Today Osama bin Laden draws inspiration from the defeat, and especially from an anecdote about Khalid al—Walid. An unnamed Muslim remarks: 'The Romans are so numerous and the Muslims so few.' To this Khalid retorts: 'How few are the Romans, and how many the Muslims! Armies become numerous only with victory and few only with defeat, not by the number of men. By God, I would love it . . . if the enemy were twice as many' (Tabari, 11:94 / 2095). Osama bin Ladin quotes Khalid and says that his fighters love death more than we in the West love life. This philosophy of death probably comes from a verse like Sura 2:96. Muhammad assesses the Jews: '[Prophet], you are sure to find them [the Jews] clinging to life more eagerly than any other people, even polytheists' (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004; first insertion in brackets is Haleem's; the second mine).

634—644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al—Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.

635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus

636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al—Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636)

638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.

638—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.

639—642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.

641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.

643—707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.

644—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.

656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son—in—law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet's daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.

656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad's wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman's assassination. Ali's partisans win.

657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali

661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali's supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.

661—680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus

673—678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire

680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad's grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.

691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad's death.

705 Abd al—Malik restores Umayyad rule.

710—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.

711—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place.

719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governor

732 The Muslim Crusaders stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance

749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids

756 Foundation of Umayyid amirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids

762 Foundation of Baghdad

785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova

789 Rise of Idrisid amirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.

800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia

807 Caliph Harun al—Rashid orders the destruction of non—Muslim prayer houses and of the church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem

809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy

813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country

831 Muslim Crusaders capture Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy

850 Caliph al—Matawakkil orders the destruction of non—Muslim houses of prayer

855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)

837—901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France

869—883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq

909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia

928—969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969)

937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places

937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked

960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam

966 Anti—Christian riots in Jerusalem

969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo

c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East

973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids

1003 First persecutions by al—Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed

1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al—Hakim (see 937)

1012 Beginning of al—Hakim's oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians

1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses

1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus

1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed

1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (aka Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.

1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate

1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection

1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia

1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine

1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)

1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia

1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana

1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies

1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca

1090—1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands

1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970

1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099

So it is only after all of the Islamic aggressive invasions that Western Christendom launches its first Crusades.

It could be argued that sometimes the Byzantine and Western European leaders did not behave exemplarily, so a timeline on that subject could be developed. And sometimes the Muslims behaved exemplarily. Both are true. However, the goal of this timeline is to balance out the picture more clearly. Many people regard Islam as an innocent victim, and the Byzantines and Europeans as bullies. This was not always the case.

Moreover, we should take a step back and look at the big picture. If Islam had stayed in Arabia and had not waged wars of conquest, then no troubles would have erupted. But the truth is this: Islam moved aggressively during the Caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar in the seventh century, with other Caliphs continuing well beyond that; only then did the Western Europeans react (see 1094).

It must be noted that Islamic expansion continues until well into the seventeenth century. For example, the Muslims Crusaders conquer Constantinople in 1453 and unsuccessfully besiege Vienna for the second time in 1683 (earlier in 1529). By the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Islamic Crusades receded, due to Western resistance. Since that time until the present, Islamic civilization has not advanced very far.

Two questions are posed and then answered at length.

Besides following Muhammad, why else did the Muslims launch their Crusades out of Arabia in the first place?

It is only natural to ask why Islam launched its own Crusades long before Christendom did.

In the complicated Muslim Crusades that lasted several centuries before the European Crusades, it is difficult to come up with a grand single theory as to what launched these Crusades. Because of this difficulty, we let three scholars and two eyewitness participants analyze the motives of the early Islamic Crusades.

1. World religious conquest

Muslim polemicists like Sayyid Qutb assert that Islam's mission is to correct the injustices of the world. What he has in mind is that if Islam does not control a society, then injustice dominates it, ipso facto. But if Islam dominates it, then justice rules it (In the Shade of the Qur'an, vol. 7, pp. 8—15). Islam is expansionist and must conquer the whole world to express Allah's perfect will on this planet, so Qutb and other Muslims believe.

2. 'Unruly' energies in Arabia?

Karen Armstrong, a former nun and well—spoken, prolific author and apologist for Islam, comes up short of a satisfactory justification for the Muslim Crusades:

Once [Abu Bakr] crushed the rebellion [against Islamic rule within Arabia], Abu Bakr may well have decided to alleviate internal tensions by employing the unruly energies within the ummah [Muslim community] against external foes. Whatever the case, in 633 Muslim armies began a new series of campaigns in Persia, Syria and Iraq. (Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths, New York: Ballantine, 1997, p. 226).

Armstrong also notes that the 'external foes' to Islam in Arabia in 633 are the Persians and the Byzantines, but they are too exhausted after years of fighting each other to pose a serious threat to Islam. Therefore, it moved into a 'power vacuum,' unprovoked (Armstrong p. 227). She simply does not know with certainty why Muslims marched northward out of Arabia.

3. Religion, economy, and political control

Fred M. Donner, the dean of historians specializing in the early Islamic conquests, cites three large factors for the Islamic Crusades. First, the ideological message of Islam itself triggered the Muslim ruling elite simply to follow Muhammad and his conquests; Islam had a divinely ordained mission to conquer in the name of Allah. (The Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton UP, 1981, p. 270). The second factor is economic. The ruling elite 'wanted to expand the political boundaries of the new state in order to secure even more fully than before the trans—Arab commerce they had plied for a century or more' (p. 270). The final factor is political control. The rulers wanted to maintain their top place in the new political hierarchy by having aggressive Arab tribes migrate into newly conquered territories (p. 271).

Thus, these reasons they have nothing to do with just wars of self—defense. Early Islam was merely being aggressive without sufficient provocation from the surrounding Byzantine and Persian Empires.

4. Sheer thrill of conquest and martyrdom

Khalid al—Walid (d. 642), a bloodthirsty but superior commander of the Muslim armies at the time, also answers the question as to why the Muslims stormed out of Arabia, in his terms of surrender set down to the governor of al—Hirah, a city along the Euphrates River in Iraq. He is sent to call people to Islam or pay a 'protection' tax for the 'privilege' of living under Islamic rule (read: not to be attacked again) as dhimmis or second—class citizens. Says Khalid:

'I call you to God and to Islam. If you respond to the call, you are Muslims: You obtain the benefits they enjoy and take up the responsibilities they bear. If you refuse, then [you must pay] the jizyah. If you refuse the jizyah, I will bring against you tribes of people who are more eager for death than you are for life. We will fight you until God decides between us and you.' (Tabari, The Challenge to the Empires, trans. Khalid Yahya Blankinship, NY: SUNYP, 1993, vol. 11, p. 4; Arabic page 2017)

Thus, according to Khalid, religion is early Islam's primary motive (though not the only one) of conquering people.

In a short sermon, Abu Bakr says:

. . . Indeed, the reward in God's book for jihad in God's path is something for which a Muslim should love to be singled out, by which God saved [people] from humiliation, and through which He has bestowed nobility in this world and the next. (Tabari 11:80 / 2083—84)

Thus, the Caliph repeats the Quran's trade of this life for the next, in an economic bargain and in the context of jihad (cf. Suras 4:74; 9:111 and 61:10—13). This offer of martyrdom, agreeing with Donner's first factor, religious motivation, is enough to get young Muslims to sign up for and to launch their Crusades out of Arabia in the seventh century.

Khalid also says that if some do not convert or pay the tax, then they must fight an army that loves death as other people love life (see 634).

5. Improvement of life over that in Arabia

But improvement of life materially must be included in this not—so—holy call. When Khalid perceived that his Muslim Crusaders desired to return to Arabia, he pointed out how luscious the land of the Persians was:

'Do you not regard [your] food like a dusty gulch? By God, if struggle for God's sake and calling [people] to God were not required of us, and there were no consideration except our livelihood, the wise opinion would [still] have been to strike this countryside until we possess it'. . . . (Tabari 11:20 / 2031)

Khalid was from Mecca. At the time of this 'motivational' speech, the Empire of Persia included Iraq, and this is where Khalid is warring. Besides his religious goal of Islamizing its inhabitants by warfare, Khalid's goal is to 'possess' the land.

Like Pope Urban II in 1095 exhorting the Medieval Crusaders to war against the Muslim 'infidels' for the first time, in response to Muslim aggression that had been going on for centuries, Abu Bakr gives his own speech in 634, exhorting Muslims to war against the 'infidels,' though he is not as long—winded as the Pope.

Muslim polemicists believe that Islam spread militarily by a miracle from Allah. However, these five earth—bound reasons explain things more clearly.

Did the Islamic Crusades force conversions by the sword?

Historical facts demonstrate that most of the conquered cities and regions accepted the last of three options that were enforced by the later Muslim Crusaders: (1) fight and die, (2) convert and pay the zakat tax; (3) keep their Biblical faith and pay the jizya tax. Most preferred to remain in their own religion.

However, people eventually converted. After all, Islamic lands are called such for a reason—or many reasons. Why? Four Muslim polemicists whitewash the reasons people converted, so their scholarship is suspect.

1. The polemical answer

First, Malise Ruthven and Azim Nanji use the Quran to explain later historical facts:

'Islam expanded by conquest and conversion. Although it was sometimes said that the faith of Islam was spread by the sword, the two are not the same. The Koran states unequivocally, 'There is no compulsion in religion' (Sura 2:256).' (Historical Atlas of Islam, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard, 2004, 30).

According to them, the Quran says there should be no compulsion, so the historical facts conform to a sacred text. This shaky reasoning is analyzed, below.

Next, David Dakake also references Sura 2:256, and defines compulsion very narrowly. Jihad has been misrepresented as forcing Jews, Christians, and other peoples of the Middle East, Asia and Africa to convert to Islam 'on pain of death.' ('The Myth of Militant Islam,' Islam, Fundamentalism, and the Betrayal of Tradition, ed. J.E.B. Lumbard, Bloomington: World Wisdom, 2004, p. 13). This is too narrow a definition of compulsion, as we shall see, below.

Finally, Qutb, also citing Sura 2:256, is even more categorical:

'Never in its history did Islam compel a single human being to change his faith' (In the Shade of the Qur'an, vol. 8, p. 307).

This is absurd on its face, and it only demonstrates the tendentiousness of Islamic scholarship, which must be challenged at every turn here in the West. For more information and thorough logic, see this article.

2. The historical facts

History does not always follow Scriptures because people do not. Did the vast majority of conquered peoples make such fine distinctions, even if a general amnesty were granted to People of the Book? Maybe a few diehards did, but the majority? Most people at this time did not know how to read or could barely read, so when they saw a Muslim army outside their gates, why would they not convert, even if they waited? To Ruthven's and Nanji's credit, they come up with other reasons to convert besides the sword, such as people's fatigue with church squabbles, a few doctrinal similarities, simplicity of the conversion process, a desire to enter the ranks of the new ruling elite, and so on. But using the Quran to interpret later facts paints the history of Islam into a corner of an unrealistically high standard.

This misguided connection between Scripture and later historical facts does not hold together. Revelations or ideals should not run roughshod over later historical facts, as if all followers obey their Scriptures perfectly.

To his credit, Ibn Khaldun (1332—1406), late Medieval statesman, jurist, historian, and scholar, has enough integrity and candor to balance out these four Muslim apologists, writing a history that is still admired by historians today. He states the obvious:

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. (The Muqaddimah: an Introduction to History (abridged), trans. Franz Rosenthal, Princeton UP, 1967, p.183)

When the Islamic Crusaders go out to conquer, carrying an Islamic banner inscribed in Arabic of the glory and the truth of their prophet, Ibn Khaldun would not deny that the army's mission, besides the material reasons of conquest, is to convert the inhabitants. Islam is a 'universalizing' religion, and if its converts enter its fold either by persuasion or force, then that is the nature of Islam.

Moreover, Ibn Khaldun explains why a dynasty rarely establishes itself firmly in lands of many different tribes and groups. But it can be done after a long time and employing the following tactics, as seen in the Maghrib (N and NW Africa) from the beginning of Islam to Ibn Khaldun's own time:

The first (Muslim) victory over them and the European Christians (in the Maghrib) was of no avail. They continued to rebel and apostatized time after time. The Muslims massacred many of them. After the Muslim religion had been established among them, they went on revolting and seceding, and they adopted dissident religious opinions many times. They remained disobedient and unmanageable . . . . Therefore, it has taken the Arabs a long time to establish their dynasty in the . . . Maghrib. (p. 131)

Conclusion

Though European Crusaders may have been sincere, they wandered off from the origins of Christianity when they slashed and burned and forced conversions. Jesus never used violence; neither did he call his disciples to use it. Given this historical fact, it is only natural that the New Testament would never endorse violence to spread the word of the true God. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Jesus.

In contrast, Muslims who slashed and burned and forced conversions did not wander off from the origins of Islam, but followed it closely. It is a plain and unpleasant historical fact that in the ten years that Muhammad lived in Medina (622—632), he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars, which range from small assassination hit squads to the Tabuk Crusade, described above (see 630). Sometimes the expeditions did not result in violence, but a Muslim army always lurked in the background. Muhammad could exact a terrible vengeance on an individual or tribe that double—crossed him. These ten years did not know long stretches of peace.

It is only natural that the Quran would be filled with references to jihad and qital, the latter word meaning only fighting, killing, warring, and slaughtering. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Muhammad. And after.

But this means that the Church had to fight back or be swallowed up by an aggressive religion over the centuries. Thus, the Church did not go out and conquer in a mindless, bloodthirsty, and irrational way—though the Christian Crusades were far from perfect.

Islam was the aggressor in its own Crusades, long before the Europeans responded with their own.

James Arlandson can be reached at jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com

Supplemental Material

Please see this two—part article (here and here) for the rules of Islamic warfare. Too often they do not follow simple justice, but were barbaric and cruel, such as permitting sex with newly captured female prisoners of war.

This article goes into more detail on the motives for Islamic expansion and a comparison with Christianity. The second major section discusses the weak Islamic claim on Jerusalem.

This book by Andrew Bostom is the antidote to the false belief that life under Islam was always a bed of roses. Bostom provides many source documents, sometimes translated for the first time. Here are some online samples. This two—part article (here and here) recounts Muslim atrocities in Palestine. This two—part article (here and here) demonstrates that jihad produced the European Crusades.

References

Gil, Moshe. A History of Palestine: 634—1099. Cambridge UP, 1983, 1997.

Nicolle, David. The Armies of Islam. Men—at—Arms. Osprey, 1982.

———. Saladin and the Saracens. Men—at Arms. Osprey, 1986.

———. Armies of the Muslim Conquests. Men—at—Arms. Osprey, 1993.

———. The Moors, the Islamic West. Men—at—Arms. Osprey, 2001.

What if the Muslims Won?

What if the Muslims Won? by Gene Edward Veith

On October 10, 732 a.d., some 80,000 Muslim cavalrymen attacked 30,000 Frankish infantrymen near Tours in present-day France. Those Muslims had already conquered Northern Africa and Spain, and they were poised to sweep over the rest of Europe. Normally, foot soldiers are no match for horsemen with lances, especially when outnumbered. So the Frankish king, Charles “The Hammer” Martel, arrayed his men at the top of a steep wooded hill, hoping that having to charge uphill and avoid trees would at least slow down the Muslim cavalry. Most importantly, he had his men huddle together to form a large square, their holding up their shields to form a “shield wall” and creating a thicket of spears to fend off the horses. If anyone broke away from the group, if anyone ran away, if the shield wall collapsed so as to force a scattered retreat, the horsemen would easily cut them down as they ran. But during the battle, as wave after wave of cavalry threw themselves against the formation, the shield wall held. Not only that, the Franks utterly defeated the invaders, slew the Muslim general, and drove his surviving forces back over the Pyrenees. Mental experiment: What if the shield wall broke? What if the Muslims won the Battle of Tours? What if the Muslims in the eighth century took over Western Europe? If they did, what would our culture look like today? Thinking that surely Western civilization would have survived despite a Muslim conquest is naive. Medieval Christendom was probably not as culturally robust as the Byzantine Empire was, but after Constantinople fell to the Muslims much later, hardly anything survived that culture’s Islamicization. Just saying that we would be like Iraq or Iran is surely not enough. In their clothing, architecture, and technology, these Islamic countries show a Western influence. When the jihadist terrorists attack Western civilization, they are using bombs, guns, and Internet communications that Western civilization has made. So let us imagine what our culture would be like if the Muslims conquered Europe, as very nearly happened. We would have no legislatures, since Islam does not recognize the creation of new laws, since the Shari’a of the Qur’an is considered sufficient for all time. This would be enforced by an absolute ruler, such as an emperor or caliph. We would today either own or be slaves. The kinds of political liberty we take for granted today would not exist. Islam does not approve of representation art, just elaborate designs for their mosques and tapestries, so we would not have much heritage in the visual arts, and the development of distinctly visual media, such as film and television, would be unlikely. We would have little, if any, music, whether symphonic compositions or rock ‘n’ roll. Islamic countries usually have religious and erotic poetry, but, despite occasional tales such as The Arabian Nights, we would probably have little fiction. The novel would not have been invented. Islam has no drama, and without the biblical plays of the early church and without Shakespeare, neither would we. We might have some science. The ancient Muslim world was good with mathematics. But it would not take the same form. Science would probably remain in the realm of the abstract and theoretical, missing the way Western engineers turned scientific discoveries into applied technology. Christianity would survive. Christ has promised that. But the church would be marginalized and restricted. Islamic tolerance means that Christians would be allowed to stay in their little groups and propagate their faith within existing families, as long as they pay deference to Islam. But woe to you if you try to evangelize a Muslim. Our churches would be little enclaves, as with the Assyrians in Iraq or the Copts in Egypt. Christianity would exist, but Muslims would control the culture. The Qur’an seeks to establish — and to fix permanently — the laws of Allah. Shari’a does not change, and so the culture it governs will not change, especially if it escapes the contingencies of history by becoming universalized. Christianity teaches that human institutions are to be judged according to the transcendent moral law of God. Thus we have the habit of criticizing our rulers and our institutions when they do not measure up. And because Christianity teaches that we live in a fallen world, we know they never do. And because this world is not absolute but contingent, that it passes away, we accept and sometimes even cause cultural change. In short, if it were not for that Frankish soldier who refused to run when the Muslim horses charged down on him, we would still be, for all practical purposes, in the eighth century. To think what Islam’s cultural influence would have been throws Christianity’s cultural influence in high relief. Christianity either directly shaped or allowed to come into being what we now recognize as Western civilization. That the shield wall held is an example of God’s providential reign over history.

Dr. Gene Edward Veith is academic dean of Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Virginia, and is the author of Modern Fascism.

The aim of Truth and Consequences is to help readers understand the broader cultural and historical implications of every theme Tabletalk magazine chooses to cover. Noted commentator Dr. Gene Edward Veith lends his talents to this column each month.

Defend the Orphan: An Age-Old Christian Lesson

HOUSES OF WORSHIP

Defend the Orphan: An Age-Old Christian Lesson Gets a New Lease on Life

By NAOMI SCHAEFER RILEY
August 29, 2008; Page W9

If John McCain is looking for a way to shore up his support among evangelical voters, he might start talking about adoption. In 1993, the McCains adopted a daughter from Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, and the senator has co-sponsored legislation to aid adoption, including measures that would provide tax credits for expenses and would remove barriers to interracial and interethnic adoption. But his efforts are rarely mentioned on the campaign trail at a time when adoption is a hot topic in the evangelical community.

Earlier this month, Rick Warren, the best-selling author and pastor of the Saddleback megachurch in Lake Forest, Calif., asked both presidential candidates if they would consider some kind of emergency plan to help the 148 million orphans around the world, something along the lines of President Bush's AIDS efforts. Both said yes, but a number of Christians and their organizations are not waiting for the next administration to act.

Associated Press

A nun kisses a handicapped baby at Shishu Bhavan, a home for orphaned children, founded by Mother Teresa in Calcutta, India.

Russell Moore, the dean of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., is the author of a forthcoming book called "Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families and Churches." A few years ago, Mr. Moore and his wife adopted two boys from Russia, and he notes that his church has posted a large map showing which countries member families have adopted children from. "In any given church," he notes, "you rarely see only one family who has adopted. . . . It becomes part of the culture of the congregation."

Tony Nolan, an adoptee himself, now travels with Christian bands and speaks to their massive audiences about adoption. During "Winterjam," a 30-city tour that recently concluded, Mr. Nolan recounted his story to some 350,000 people. His biological mother was homeless, mentally ill and a prostitute. A month before she died, he visited her in the hospital. "She grabbed me by the hand, looked at me and said, 'The doctors told me not to have you,' " Mr. Nolan says. On tour, he conveys the message that "God knew what he was doing." And after every concert, money is collected to help a local family with its adoption expenses.

Several groups are trying to remove the financial barriers to adoption. The Abba fund in Charlotte, N.C., sets up families with no-interest loans for adoption fees and travel expenses. Others are spreading the news that many children need to find loving Christian homes. The Cry of the Orphan -- a campaign co-sponsored by several Christian adoption agencies, ministries and awareness groups, including Focus on the Family -- ran Internet, TV, radio and print ads that reached 19 million people last year.

The theme was "You Are God's Plan for the Orphan," which represents something of a shift, says Kelly Rosati, who oversees Focus on the Family's adoption and orphan-care division and is the mother of four adopted children. "The traditional way of viewing adoption was something you considered if you were facing infertility." You could call it God's Plan B for the Couple. But now, according to Ms. Rosati, "the commitment to adoption is part of a holistic sanctity-of-human-life ethic."

This fall, Focus on the Family (whose leader, James Dobson, has been slowly warming to Sen. McCain) will be launching a different sort of adoption campaign. In cooperation with the state of Colorado, where the Christian organization is based, it will be shining its media spotlight on the 127,000 children in the U.S. who are considered unadoptable -- kids, typically over the age of 8, who are languishing in foster care. Many are racial minorities.

"There is much more openness to transracial adoption today," Ms. Rosati says. And Mr. Moore has been very vocal about this issue. Groups like the National Association of Black Social Workers have taken a strong stand against placing black children in the homes of white parents, a position that outrages Mr. Moore. He recently compared social workers who oppose transracial adoption to George Wallace. "Both are saying the same thing, 'Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.' And both pretend they're just being realistic about racial discrimination."

The command to "defend the orphan" (Isaiah 1:16-17) has always been vital to the Christian message, Mr. Moore tells me. One thing that distinguished early Christians from their pagan neighbors was their treatment of unwanted children. And adoption is also the literal manifestation of a metaphor that Christians use to describe themselves all the time. "Every one of us who follows Christ was adopted into an already existing family," says Mr. Moore.

So what could Sen. McCain, who has been reluctant to mention his faith explicitly, add to these efforts? For one thing, his example. There are very few serious people on the national stage who are encouraging adoption. Madonna and Brangelina are not exactly the perfect role models.

But the issue goes beyond do-goodism. Adoption is most often mentioned in the second clause of a sentence that begins with abortion. Democrats have long made the specious argument that Republicans opposed to legalized abortion want to leave women with only two options: public shaming and dangerous back-alley surgeries. Sen. McCain could highlight the real choice that Christian organizations provide every day.

Finally, the subject would give Sen. McCain a chance to talk about the importance of religious liberty. It may be recalled that the maverick flubbed a question on George Stephanopolous's show about whether gay adoption should be legal. After a little back and forth, he finally concluded that the matter should be up to the states.

But this solution creates its own set of problems. Earlier this year, the Archdiocese of Boston stopped offering adoption services because the state of Massachusetts was going to force it to provide them to gay couples. The local bishop was unwilling to violate basic church teachings on the family. If Sen. McCain sticks to his position of leaving gay-marriage decisions to the states, he might also emphasize that those states need to allow religious organizations to operate according to their own beliefs, lest we lose the vital social services that they provide.

Who knows? With a little luck, religious folks may adopt John McCain as one of their own.

Ms. Riley is the Journal's deputy Taste editor.

Question: "Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?"

Question: "Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?"

Answer: Typically when this question is asked, the person asking qualifies the question with "outside of the Bible." We do not grant this idea that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. The New Testament contains hundreds of references to Jesus Christ. There are those who date the writing of the Gospels in the second century A.D., 100+ years after Jesus' death. Even if this were the case (which we strongly dispute), in terms of ancient evidences, writings less than 200 years after events took place are considered very reliable evidences. Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.

It is also important to recognize that in 70 A.D., the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground! We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.

Considering the fact that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant backwater area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious "Christians " ("named after Christus" which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44 ).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats. . . . He was [the] Christ . . . he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." One version reads, "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover, and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of his followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed - worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

In conclusion, there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and Biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the 12 apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

Recommended Resource: Case for Faith / Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

Existência Histórica de Cristo

LEITOR QUESTIONA ARTIGO QUE NEGA A EXISTÊNCIA HISTÓRICA DE CRISTO

Por Carlos Martins Nabeto

- Envio-lhes um email que recebi e gostaria de receber ou ter acesso a posição católica sobre o assunto. Grato. Do Irmão em Cristo. Enner Jefferson.

Prezado Enner,

Pax Christi!

Antes de mais nada, gostaríamos de agradecer pelo encaminhamento desse artigo que "põe em dúvida" a historicidade de Jesus, a quem nós cristãos consideramos como "o Cristo" e "Filho de Deus".

Mais ainda, damos graças ao nosso Bom Senhor por tal artigo ter sido encaminhado por você, um cristão protestante que, certamente com toda a boa fé, "gostaria de receber ou ter acesso a posição católica sobre o assunto", confiando, assim, em nossa humilde resposta.

Que o Pai todo-poderoso, com a sua graça, possa nos ajudar a empreender essa tarefa, para que você também, assim como nós, possa render-Lhe um "cântico novo", por ter sido tão bom e amoroso para conosco, pobres pecadores.

Para facilitar a compreensão e não deixar NADA sem resposta, faremos uso do nosso costumeiro método de abordagem da matéria, considerando cada parágrafo ou idéia do artigo original.

*****

Iniciemos... O conteúdo original do artigo é indicado em azul. Nossas respostas seguem em preto:

"Antes de iniciar o aspecto da inexistência do homem chamado Jesus, é necessário dissociar o conceito Jesus do de Cristo".

É evidente que o CONCEITO entre Jesus (uma Pessoa) se diferencia do de Cristo (o Salvador Ungido). Porém, isto não significa que JESUS DE NAZARÉ - E APENAS ELE - SEJA O CRISTO! Há, pois, total compatibilidade entre Pessoa e Função.

Nada obstante, verifica-se claramente que o articulista pretende demonstrar a inexistência histórica do "homem chamado Jesus" (se esquecendo ainda que os cristãos não consideram Jesus apenas como mero homem, mas verdadeiramente como "homem E Deus"); logo, mais exato seria ele pretender provar a impossibilidade da Encarnação do Verbo (o que - reconheçamos - não conseguiria mesmo fazer, pois "para Deus, tudo é possível" [Mateus 19,26]). Então, como não pode provar a premissa maior, tenta a menor...

"Cristo vem do crestus essênio e significa peixe, literalmente, mas o sentido é de ungido, entre outras palavras, referindo-se ao estado transpessoal do ser humano".

Sabemos muito bem que os primeiros cristãos atribuíam, sim, a figura do peixe a Jesus Cristo, Senhor Nosso. As catacumbas de Roma possuem inúmeras pinturas do Peixe nas lápides que encerram ou encerraram corpos de cristãos falecidos e martirizados.

Porém, Cristo não significa "peixe", mas "Ungido"; e tal fato nada tem à ver com "o estado transpessoal do ser humano" - como quer fazer crer o articulista - se relacionando, ao contrário, ao fato de que o Pai consagrou o Filho para uma missão de salvação (esclarecendo, assim, o Novo Testamento, o motivo prefigurado pelo qual os reis e sacerdotes de Israel eram ungidos com um caráter sagrado: eram a "sombra" de Cristo Jesus, o Messias! O único que seria DE FATO simultaneamente rei e sacerdote!).

Por seu turno, o hábito de os cristãos apontarem Cristo pela imagem do Peixe também nada tem a ver com o tal "crestus essênio", pois o óleo da unção dos reis e sacerdotes encontra-se detalhamente descrito em Êxodo 30,22, o qual foi redigido centenas de anos antes da própria existência dessa seita judaica.

Na verdade, a figura do Peixe foi sabiamente escolhida pelos primeiros cristãos (que passaram a ser perseguidos logo no início de sua formação, quer por judeus, quer por pagãos) porque encontrava fundamento bíblico nas palavras de Jesus: "Eu vos farei pescadores de homens" (Marcos 1,17) e também porque a palavra "peixe" em grego (escrita em caracteres latinos "ichtus") representava abreviadamente a expressão "Jesus [I] Cristo [CH], de Deus [TH] Filho [U], Salvador [S]".

Cristo, como se vê, é representado pelos caracteres latinos CH que, por sua vez, correspondem aos caracteres gregos P (chi) e X (rô). Prova disto é que também são encontrados inúmeros símbolos "PX" nas catacumbas e túmulos cristãos, tendo se convertido no monograma clássico de Cristo (que, mais tarde, em latim, passaria a significar também "Christus Rex", ou seja, "Cristo Rei").

Qualquer cristão que visitasse as catacumbas mais antigas (onde eram enterrados não apenas cristãos mas também e principalmente pagãos) conseguia rapidamente identificar um túmulo cristão através desses símbolos ou outros, como a âncora, o pelicano, o pavão e o pastor.

Percebemos, assim, que o articulista, desconhecendo ou desprezando completamente a primitiva iconografia cristã, as Sagradas Escrituras e a Sagrada Tradição da Igreja, inventa estórias (sem "H" mesmo!) e faz uma tremenda salada, que se revela indigesta para os incautos.

"Autores de peso, como Sêneca, Marcial, Juvenal, Plínio o Velho, Apuleio, Fílon de Alexandria e muitos outros, viveram no transcorrer do século I e nunca o mencionaram, apesar de serem imensamente interessados nas questões religiosas da sociedade em que viviam. Os autores gregos, hindus, árabes e judeus também nunca ouviram falar na existência de Jesus".

Primeiramente, vamos ver quem era cada um desses homens: Sêneca (+65), Apuléio (+164) e Fílon (+50) eram FILÓSOFOS e não historiadores, possuindo crenças pagãs próprias; Marcial (+102) e Juvenal (+50?) eram POETAS e não historiadores; Plínio o Velho (+79) era NATURALISTA e não historiador.

Em suma: NENHUM deles tinha compromisso com a tarefa de apontar e narrar FATOS HISTÓRICOS, pois se dedicavam principalmente às matérias ESPECULATIVAS. Com efeito, não nos surpreende em absolutamente nada que TALVEZ nada tenham abordado sobre a figura histórica de Jesus.

E usamos aqui um "talvez" porque, sabendo do penoso processo de redação, publicação e transmissão dos textos na época antiga, é bem possível que diversas obras desses escritores nem mesmo tenham sido copiadas e transmitidas...

Ironia do "destino" é que as obras literárias desses homens, que conseguiram chegar até os nossos dias, só foram salvas GRAÇAS aos monges católicos medievais que as copiaram e as difundiram em manuscritos, ainda que não fizessem referências a Jesus Cristo ou à religião cristã, o que redunda em prol da própria Igreja Católica em dois pontos:

1º) Por salvar a literatura "clássica" e antiga;

2º) Por demonstrar que os monges copistas reproduziam, com boa fé e fidelidade, tais textos de origem pagã. E se tomavam tal cuidado com essas obras, quanto mais tomariam com as Sagradas Escrituras e outras obras de autores cristãos!!!

Seja como for, o articulista OMITE que outras personalidades antigas NÃO ESQUECERAM de falar de Cristo! Inclusive historiadores, compromissados com fatos históricos...

Tácito (+115), historiador e jurista romano, aponta: "Este nome (cristãos) lhes vem de Cristo, que no tempo de Tibério tinha sido entregue ao suplício pelo procurador Pôncio Pilatos" ("Anais" XV,44).

Ou o também historiador e sociólogo romano Suetônio (+141), que observava que durante o reinado do imperador Cláudio (41-54), "expulsou de Roma os judeus, que, sob o impulso de Chrestós, se haviam tornado causa frequente de tumultos" ("Vita Claudii" XXV). Observe-se que "Chréstos" é uma forma grega equivalente a Christós e a informação condiz perfeitamente com o relato de Atos 18,2: "Cláudio decretou que todos os judeus saíssem de Roma" .

Ou o historiador judeu Flávio Josefo (+98), que afirma: "Por esse tempo apareceu Jesus, um homem sábio, que praticou boas obras e cujas virtudes eram reconhecidas. Muitos judeus e pessoas de outras nações tornaram-se seus discípulos. Pilatos o condenou a ser crucificado e morto. Porém, aqueles que se tornaram seus discípulos pregaram sua doutrina. Eles afirmam que Jesus apareceu a eles três dias após a sua crucificação e que está vivo." (Josefo, "Antiguidades Judaicas" XVIII,3,2).

Ou, ainda, com o antiquíssimo Talmud Babilônico, relatando a seu jeito, para favorecer os judeus: " Na véspera da Páscoa suspenderam a uma haste Jesus de Nazaré. Durante quarenta dias um arauto, à frente dele, clamava: 'Merece ser lapidado, porque exerceu a magia, seduziu Israel e o levou à rebelião. Quem tiver algo para o justificar venha proferí-lo!' Nada, porém se encontrou que o justificasse; então suspenderam-no à haste na véspera da Páscoa" (Tratado Sanhedrin 43a do Talmud da Babilônia). Note-se que este relato judaico não põe em dúvida a existência histórica de Jesus, muito pelo contrário...

Como se vê, todos eles falam da PESSOA de Cristo (não simplesmente da existência de cristãos). Logo, não há como se afirmar que "escritores antigos" nunca ouviram ou falaram acerca de Jesus Cristo. Afirmar o contrário é querer passar uma "borracha" injustificadamente sobre a História, deliberadamente para satisfazer seus próprios interesses e desejos pessoais.

"Nada consta no Sinédrio de Jerusalém, nem nos anais de Pôncio Pilatos, nem nos do Imperador Tibério, malgrado a ameaça de um novo rei, ainda que do 'outro mundo' merecesse toda a atenção do Império Romano. O silêncio é gritante!".

Jerusalém foi destruída pelos romanos, no ano 70 d.C., em razão dos constantes tumultos e levantes judaicos; no ano 135, após nova e violenta revolta, os romanos tornaram a invadir e, desta vez, a destruir por completo toda Jerusalém... Praticamente nada sobrou e o Templo foi arrasado. Quereria o articulista ainda esperar encontrar algum documento do Sinédrio e, mais especificamente, sobre Cristo? Quanta pretensão!

No que diz respeito aos registros públicos romanos, também não seria necessário lembrar que Roma foi invadida, pilhada e destruída algumas vezes pelos bárbaros, outras vezes pelos próprios governantes romanos em guerras que travavam entre si. Portanto, poderiam muito bem ter sido destruídos em algum desses eventos ou o articulista pode provar, com ALGUM registro histórico, o contrário?

Ademais, se Jesus de fato nunca tivesse existido, tal "mentira cristã" não teria durado muito, até porque contava com a total repressão dos judeus? Como poderia um "mito sem pé nem cabeça" conquistar todo o vasto e poderosíssimo Império romano, sofrendo duríssima perseguição, quer de judeus, quer de pagãos, em apenas três séculos?

Como quer que seja, pelo que apreciamos até aqui, a evidência histórica fala muito mais favoravelmente à existência de Jesus...

"Segundo La Sagesse, 'As bibliotecas e museus guardam escritos e documentos de autores que teriam sido contemporâneos de Jesus os quais não fazem qualquer referência ao mesmo. Por outro lado, a ciência histórica tem-se recusado a dar crédito aos documentos oferecidos pela Igreja, com intenção de provar-lhe a existência física. Ocorre que tais documentos, originariamente não mencionavam sequer o nome de Jesus, todavia foram falsificados, rasurados e adulterados visando suprir a ausência de documentação verdadeira. Por outro lado, muito do que foi escrito para provar a inexistência de Jesus Cristo foi destruído pela Igreja, defensivamente. Assim é que por falta de documentos verdadeiros e indiscutíveis, a existência de Jesus tem sido posta em dúvida desde os primeiros séculos desta era, apesar de ter a Igreja tentado destruir a tudo e a todos os que tiveram coragem e ousaram contestar os seus pontos de vista e os seus dogmas'".

Com a apreciação que fizemos anteriormente, percebemos como são vãs e ridículas as palavras de La Sagesse... Até porque vimos que foi graças aos monges copistas da Igreja Católica que nos chegaram até mesmo as obras de escritores pagãos...

Se fôssemos levar à sério as palavras de La Sagesse, deveríamos começar a duvidar também da existência de muitíssimos (não só de alguns!) personagens antigos e anteriores a Cristo, inclusive Sócrates e Platão, que só nos chegaram graças a esses monges...

Ou teríamos ainda que concluir - ABSURDAMENTE - que a Terra e todo o universo não existem verdadeiramente porque faltam registros históricos confiáveis e documentados que sigam a "ciência séria e pessoal" de cada um destes críticos do Cristianismo e da Igreja Católica.

Com efeito: se os documentos que fazem menção à existência histórica de Cristo que citamos acima foram corrompidos, que nos apresentem - segundo a mesma ciência EXATA que nos pedem - QUAIS são os manuscritos mais antigos, dos MESMOS escritores, que contradizem a existência histórica de Jesus e os relatos acima transcritos.

Que não façam, pois, acusações LEVIANAS E GRATUITAS, mas que demonstrem com dados cientificos CONFIÁVEIS E IRREFUTÁVEIS. O articulista, portanto, faz uma alegação pura e simples, mas não apresenta PROVA em contrário e nem se dá ao luxo de pelo menos fazer uma referência, segundo o critério científico, de onde tirou as suas "conclusões racionais".

"Paralelamente, Alberto Cousté diz que 'A única exceção estaria em um parágrafo das Antigüidades Judaicas, de Flávio Josefo (37-95), mas Hainchelin demonstra, pela crítica comparada que faz de outras passagens, que se trata de uma grosseira e tardia interpolação. Voltaire já o havia intuído no artigo 'Cristianismo' do Dicionário Filosófico: 'Como teria esse judeu obstinado afirmado que Jesus era o Cristo? Que absurdo colocar na boca de Josefo palavras de um cristão!'. É muito importante se indagar qual o porquê desta interpolação forjada por Eusébio. Qual motivo haveria senão encobrir a inexistência de Jesus?"

O autor cita a passagem interpolada de Flávio Josefo, mas esquece de dizer que existe uma outra, mais antiga, que não possui tal interpolação e que não nega a existência de Jesus (apenas não afirma que ele era o Cristo, como realmente seria de se esperar de um historiador que professa o Judaísmo!). Tal passagem é justamente aquela que apontamos mais acima e que novamente reproduzimos aqui, para relembrar:

"Por esse tempo apareceu Jesus, um homem sábio, que praticou boas obras e cujas virtudes eram reconhecidas. Muitos judeus e pessoas de outras nações tornaram-se seus discípulos. Pilatos o condenou a ser crucificado e morto. Porém, aqueles que se tornaram seus discípulos pregaram sua doutrina. Eles afirmam que Jesus apareceu a eles três dias após a sua crucificação e que está vivo. [Talvez ele fosse o Messias previsto pelos maravilhosos prognósticos dos profetas]" (Josefo, "Antiguidades Judaicas" XVIII,3,2)." (Josefo, "Antiguidades Judaicas" XVIII,3,2).

Mas ainda que se considerasse a interpolação (indicada acima entre colchetes), o fato é que ela também não diz respeito à historicidade de Jesus, mas parece apontar uma "dúvida" de Josefo de TALVEZ ser Jesus o Messias prometido ao Povo de Israel (e nada mais que isso!).

Cai por terra, assim, e de uma só vez, todos os argumentos de Cousté e de Voltaire... Novamente notamos que a História tende para a existência de Jesus de Nazaré!

Mais interessante, porém, é saber - ah, como a História nos faz bem!! - que Voltaire morreu buscando a sua reconciliação com a Igreja Católica, tendo sido assistido por sacerdotes católicos, que ali estavam a seu pedido (ou seja, será que não acreditava mesmo na existência histórica de Jesus Cristo?)!!!

"Os maçons do mais alto grau sabem (ou desconfiam) que as palavras postas na boca do mito de Jesus eram na realidade de João, o Essênio, também conhecido como o Batista. Marcelo Mota, em Carta a Um Maçon, denuncia esse fato, explicando que João teria nascido antes do século I e o seu pensamento teve grande impacto sobre a época em que viveu, afirmando que 'o homem era o templo do deus vivo'. Assim, os primeiros patriarcas não puderam deixar de incluí-lo, sob pena de levantar suspeita. O quarto Evangelho diz que 'Havia um homem enviado por Deus, cujo nome era João'. Iguala, pois, João a Jesus".

A fé e a doutrina da Igreja Católica é TOTALMENTE incompatível com as crenças e as afirmações maçônicas.

Ademais, nunca é tarde para lembrar que a Igreja Católica continua DECLARANDO não ser possível a ninguém querer ser católico e, ao mesmo tempo, maçon. Se alguém afirmar ser maçon, CERTAMENTE não poderá afirmar ser "cristão católico", dada a condenação existente.

Logo, o que os maçons acham ou deixam de achar sobre Jesus NÃO NOS QUER SIGNIFICAR ABSOLUTAMENTE NADA! Se eles acham que Jesus e João Batista eram iguais, PROBLEMA deles. Responderão por sua posição no Dia do Juízo.

Porém, para sermos um pouco mais práticos: onde e como o tal Marcelo Mota PROVOU que Jesus não existiu? Apenas por ter dado a entender que Ele usou ensinamentos de João Batista? Mas João Batista era judeu, assim como o próprio Jesus!!! Logo, os pensamentos de João Batista e de Jesus, EVIDENTEMENTE, não se opunham às verdades contidas no Antigo Testamento e poderiam ser realmente bem semelhantes!!! Ora, em que isto contradiz a existência fática de Jesus? Em nada!

"Em relação aos supostos milagres do mito do nazareno, a cópia descarada foi, agora, de Apolônio de Tiana, que teria revivido os mistérios de Dionísio. Vejamos alguns desses milagres, de acordo com Alberto Cousté: a) Apolônio teria nascido também de mãe virgem; b) Diversos reis enviaram presentes e cartas à parturiente; c) Ainda criança, ele discutiu com os doutores do templo de Esculápio e os derrotou; d) Os cisnes cantaram no seu nascimento e um raio caiu do céu (adoração dos pastores e a estrela de Belém); e) Os anjos transportavam-no pelo ar (segunda tentação de Jesus); f) Ressuscitava mortos, curava cegos e aparecia na frente de amigos distantes; g) Entendia a linguagem dos pássaros; h) Convocava o demônio, que lhe aparecia sob a forma de um olmo; i) Tinha poder sobre os demônios inferiores que atormentavam os possuídos, expulsando-os ao capricho dos seus desejos. Basta dar uma consultada em A Vida de Apolônio, escrita por Filóstrato. Não é só. Os ritos solares baseados na fórmula do deus sacrificado, copiaram-se uns aos outros. Seria cansativo repeti-los todos aqui, mas, veja-se, por exemplo, em relação ao mito de Horus, há milhares de anos antes do conto de Jesus e, depois, leitor, julgue você mesmo a espantosa semelhança: a) Horus nasceu de uma virgem em 25 de dezembro; b) Horus teve 12 discípulos, que representavam os doze signos zodiacais; c) Horus foi enterrado em um túmulo e ressuscitado; d) Horus era também a Verdade, a Luz, o Messias, o Pastor Bom etc.; e) Horus também realizava milagres; f) Horus ressuscitou um homem chamado El-Azar-Us, que, é óbvio, traduziram como Lázaro, o leproso. O copista nem se deu ao trabalho de mudar o nome, já que a grande massa era ignara e não sabia latim; g) O epíteto de Horus era "Iusa" (Jesus), "o Filho sempre tornando-se" de "Ptah", o "Pai"; h) Horus também era chamado o "KRST" (Cristo) ou "Ungido". Se perscrutar outros ritos, como o de Mitra, Adônis, Krishna, Osíris etc., fica patente novas e inúmeras cópias, vários plágios de textos religiosos, com pouca alteração. Indico aqui ao leitor que quiser se aprofundar no assunto a obra Ísis Sem Véu, de Madame Blavatsky."

Como o articulista - NA VERDADE - não possui NENHUM ARGUMENTO SÓLIDO (principalmente histórico) para fundamentar a sua pretensão de negar a existência de Jesus, parte para um plano B, que seria dizer que o Cristianismo (em especial o Catolicismo) é resultado de um Paganismo misturado com crenças judaicas. Em outras palavras, os cristãos teriam criado o "mito" Jesus fazendo uso de uma série de crenças pagãs.

TAL ARGUMENTO É PRA LÁ DE VELHO... E ANTI-HISTÓRICO!! O argumento, aliás, costuma a ser explorado pelos protestantes (Hislop, White etc.), sem convencer dada a precariedade das "provas" suscitadas.

A propósito, há alguns anos, um Pastor protestante, pr. Ralph Woodrow, publicou um livro, baseado sobretudo nas teses de Hislop, rotulando as crenças católicas como "pagãs"; passados alguns anos, humildemente reconheceu que fôra injusto e se retratou publicamente, tirando o seu livro de circulação e publicando um outro em que restabelecia a verdade que descubrira em suas pesquisas mais honestas (veja aqui, nas suas próprias palavras: http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/pages/babylon-mystery.html). Obviamente que, além de desagradar os ateístas de plantão, acabou por desagradar muitos protestantes que enxergavam no seu livro anterior uma arma hábil contra os católicos... ;)

Ora, nós, cristãos em geral (católicos, ortodoxos e protestantes) oramos a Deus. Os pagãos faziam (e fazem o mesmo). Então porque oramos, somos pagãos? Nós cremos em Deus, os pagãos também; então somos pagãos? Nós cremos que Deus tem o poder de fazer milagres, os pagãos também pensam o mesmo de seus inúmeros deuses; então nosso Deus teve origem pagã? Uma mentalidade bem simplista... e curta...

E as ORIGENS de certos detalhes seriam exatamente as mesmas e expressariam também os MESMOS SIGNIFICADOS? O Natal dos cristãos expressaria a recordação da Encarnação do Verbo ou A adoração de um deus pagão chamado Mitra?

É ÓBVIO que a origem do Natal encontra-se na Encarnação de Jesus, Deus feito homem, e sua celebração NADA TEM a ver com o Mitraísmo... A idéia é ridícula e sem sentido algum; TOTALMENTE FORA DA REALIDADE, demonstrando apenas a FANTASIA de certas pessoas que, para negarem alguma coisa que não lhe agrada, misturam alhos com bugalhos e só podem confundir mesmo aqueles que NÃO EDIFICARAM A SUA FÉ SOBRE A PEDRA (Mateus 16,18), mas sobre a areia.

Pois muito bem, se tais coisas REALMENTE são pagãs, então que nos PROVE não apenas alegando gratuitamente, mas apresentando fontes confiáveis e, acima de tudo, PRECISAS! Na verdade, o autor do artigo incorpora aqui o famoso "espírito de papagaio", repetindo coisas afirmadas por outros, que por sua vez ouviram de outros e assim vai, sem se atentar para uma análise mais cuidadosa e... histórica!

Os 12 Apóstolos correspondem aos 12 signos do zodíaco? Em que fonte ESCRITA foi relatado isso ORIGINALMENTE? Em que livro, em que capítulo e em que ano foi escrito PRECISAMENTE? ... E que o articulista faça o mesmo para cada "plágio cristão" que encontrar, vez que o ônus de provar é sempre de quem afirma...

Estaremos aqui, SENTADOS, esperando as PROVAS...

"Além disso, os textos pagãos, essênios e gnósticos foram descaradamente copiados para compor o atual Novo Testamento, junto com o expurgo dos apócrifos, no Concílio de Nicéia, em 325, onde provavelmente foi criado o mito de Jesus para dar cumprimento à profecia judaica sobre o advento de um messias. O anônimo autor de Supernatural Religion demonstra o caráter espúrio dos quatro Evangelhos, perpetrada por Irineu e seus lacaios".

Desta vez o autor "viajou na maionese"...

Primeiro: se os textos gnósticos foram COPIADOS para compor o Novo Testamento então porque Santo Ireneu (+202) escreveu justamente sua obra "Contra as Heresias" especificamente contra os gnósticos e citando inúmeras vezes trechos do Novo Testamento?

E isto basta também para demonstrar que o tal "anônimo autor de Supernatural Religion" caiu também em total contradição ao afirmar que os Evangelhos foram "perpetrados por Irineu e seus lacaios"... Ora, se Ireneu é antignóstico, como poderia usar os textos gnósticos para compor o NT?

Segundo, a ciência já PROVOU DEFINITIVAMENTE que o Novo Testamento é muito anterior ao Concílio de Nicéia. Diversos fragmentos de papiros do NT são datados - segundo as modernas técnicas e metodologias das ciência - como ANTERIORES ao séc. IV (vários deles, inclusive, do mesmo séc. I d.C.!).

Ademais, existem muitos autores cristãos anteriores ao referido Concílio e a Ireneu (Clemente de Roma, Inácio de Antioquia, Policarpo de Esmirna, Hermas de Roma, Pápias de Hierápolis, Aristides de Atenas, Taciano da Síria, Atenágoras de Atenas, Teófilo de Antioquia, entre vários outros) que citam LITERALMENTE passagens e seções inteiras do Novo Testamento tal como sempre conhecemos em nossas leituras...

Percebe-se que o articulista, no seu afã de pregar contra a existência de Cristo, CAI EM TOTAL CONTRADIÇÃO, pois ao querer fazer uso favorável dos apócrifos gnósticos para retirar a autoridade do Novo Testamento canônico, SE ESQUECEU QUE OS ESCRITOS GNÓSTICOS APÓIAM E CONCORDAM QUE JESUS REALMENTE EXISTIU!!!!

E assim, o próprio o Autor deste artigo contra Jesus perde TOTALMENTE a sua autoridade (se é que ainda lhe restava alguma...).

"É óbvio que esta fraude em nada influenciou os judeus, que sabiam da história toda, razão por que eles têm sido perseguidos nestes dois milênios pelo Vaticano".

E eis que novamente o articulista cai em contradição... Afirma ele agora que a "fraude do NT não influenciou os judeus" e que eles "sabiam da história toda" (isto é, de que Jesus não teria existido!)...

Ora! Se isto fosse verdade, ou seja, se soubessem MESMO que Jesus nunca teria existido, não teriam preferido afirmar isso CLARA E ABERTAMENTE ao invés de se reunirem em Jâmnia, por volta do ano 90 DEPOIS DE CRISTO, para estabelecerem o cânon da Bíblia judaica - "retirando" (como se pudessem fazê-lo após a vinda do Cristo Salvador!) a autoridade das escrituras aceitas naturalmente pelos judeus alexandrinos (que adotavam a Septuaginta, com os livros que chamamos hoje de "deuterocanônicos") e que agora vinha sendo usado pelos cristãos para suportar todo o ensino cristão (inclusive da própria existência de Cristo)?

E (relembrando mais uma vez a afirmação do autor feita no parágrafo anterior), porque esses judeus, que "sabiam de tudo" não agregaram à sua Bíblia oficial, de Jâmnia, os livros gnósticos se estes tinham verdadeiramente alguma autoridade? Mais: por que não teriam feito o mesmo no seu Talmud, ao invés de - ao contrário - confirmarem a existência histórica de Cristo? Ora, leiamos novamente o que o Talmud afirma CATEGORICAMENTE:

"NA VÉSPERA DA PÁSCOA suspenderam a uma haste JESUS DE NAZARÉ. Durante quarenta dias um arauto, à frente dele, clamava: 'Merece ser lapidado, porque exerceu a magia, seduziu Israel e o levou à rebelião. Quem tiver algo para o justificar venha proferí-lo!' Nada, porém se encontrou que o justificasse; ENTÃO suspenderam-no à haste na véspera da Páscoa." (Tratado Sanhedrin 43a do Talmud da Babilônia).

Com efeito, se o autor assume que os judeus "sabiam de tudo", DEVERÁ RECONHECER QUE JESUS CRISTO REALMENTE EXISTIU NO TEMPO E NO ESPAÇO TERRESTRE, pois os judeus reconheceram isso!!!!!

CHEQUE-MATE!!!

Quanto à acusação de que o Vaticano persegue os judeus, eles mesmos já reconheceram HISTORICAMENTE que foi graças ao Vaticano que muitos deles se salvaram durante a II Guerra Mundial. E, além disto, o papa João Paulo II emitiu um pedido de perdão aos judeus pelos crimes praticados pelos FILHOS DA IGREJA. Portanto, o articulista está tratando, no mínimo, de coisas que desconhece; ou pretende - inutilmente! - ressuscitar uma culpa que já foi sepultada pela própria História.

"Havia quase setenta seitas, no século IV, de acordo com uma enumeração de Epifânio, que compartilhavam sobre a maldade intrínseca da criação e viam em Jeová um demiurgo imperfeito e rancoroso, que se deixava enganar por sua própria criação. Uma dessas seitas, de opinião diversa, sofrera enormemente a influência do culto mitral, trazida pelos soldados de Pompeu, pouco antes do início da era cristã, deslumbrados pelo dualismo persa. Estando o Império Romano fragilizado, esta seita aliou-se a Constantino. O benefício seria mútuo. Por um lado, ajudaria a fortalecer o império, por outro destruiria as outras seitas, firmando-se por absoluto. Esta seita se transformou no que conhecemos hoje como a Igreja Católica".

Esse argumento já foi inúmeras vezes refutado aqui, no site do Veritatis Splendor.

Por essa razão, além de observar que o articulista faz novamente uma afirmação gratuita, sem apontar fontes em que possa fundamentar seu o "raciocínio", preferiremos indicar os artigos em que as teses mais absurdas sobre um "possível" relacionamento entre Catolicismo e Paganismo foram abordadas:

- http://www.veritatis.com.br/article/575
- http://www.veritatis.com.br/article/3001
- http://www.veritatis.com.br/article/468
- http://www.veritatis.com.br/article/3958
- http://www.veritatis.com.br/article/4044

Esses são apenas alguns textos; mas é possível encontrar MUITOS outros usando a ferramenta de busca existente do site Veritatis Splendor, digitando-se no campo de pesquisa (no topo superior direito) palavras-chave como "Paganismo", "Babilônia", "Pagã" etc. Para aí remetemos o leitor interessado em mais detalhes.

"Portanto, o Cristianismo só poderia se assentar através da pena (fé cega) e pela espada (perseguição religiosa). E, invocando a própria Igreja Católica, está na frase histórica, proferida pelo papa Leão X: Quantum nobis prodeste haec fabula Christi! - 'Quanto nos ajuda esta fábula de Cristo!'".

O desfecho CERTAMENTE não poderia ser o pior e mais desastrado possível...

Inconformado pelo "cheque-mate" dado anteriormente, parte o autor para jogar no ar uma "lenda urbana", citada por muitos protestantes anticatólicos (na base do já mencionado "espírito de papagaio"), mas NUNCA PROVADA...

Pois muito bem, CHEQUE-MATE 2: Aponte-nos em qual documento da Igreja o Santo Padre o Papa Leão X (1513-1521) escreveu tal coisa!!!

EIS AÍ O NOSSO DESAFIO, já que a Verdade é única!!!

Se achar, aliás, mande-nos uma cópia para que possamos disponibilizá-la na Área de Documentos da Igreja, que mantemos aqui no Veritatis Splendor. E não se importe se não encontrar tal documento em português, mas só em qualquer outra língua, pois teremos IMENSO PRAZER em traduzí-lo.

Aliás, achamos que isso seria o mínimo que o articulista deveria fazer... Pelo menos assim, talvéz pudéssemos rever este nosso segundo "cheque-mate" e então ficaríamos empatados, já que ele NUNCA conseguirá derrubar o nosso primeiro "cheque-mate"... ;)

Em outras palavras... O ARTICULISTA NUNCA PROVARÁ QUE JESUS DE NAZARÉ NÃO EXISTIU!!! E NÓS TEMOS A CERTEZA DE QUE TAMBÉM NUNCA CONSEGUIRÁ DEMONSTRAR QUE O PAPA PIO X TENHA PRONUNCIADO TAL DESATINO!

Bom. Se antes esperávamos sentados, cremos agora FIRMEMENTE que poderemos deitar e dormir pra lá de despreocupados ;)

CONCLUSÃO: A HISTÓRIA E A RAZÃO DEMONSTRAM QUE JESUS CRISTO EXISTIU. A ESTÓRIA [DA CAROCHINHA] E A FALTA DE RAZÃO DEMONSTRAM O INVERSO!

-----

Em complemento a esta resposta que oferecemos, sugerimos ainda a leitura dos seguintes artigos do Veritatis Splendor:

A Igreja e o Paganismo
- http://www.veritatis.com.br/article/3958/
- http://www.veritatis.com.br/article/4073/
- http://www.veritatis.com.br/article/3001/
etc.

Historicidade de Cristo
- http://www.veritatis.com.br/article/569/
- http://www.veritatis.com.br/article/570/
- http://www.veritatis.com.br/article/4041/
etc.

Vaticano e Judaísmo
- http://www.veritatis.com.br/article/3339/
- http://www.veritatis.com.br/article/3729/
- http://www.veritatis.com.br/article/3123/
- http://www.veritatis.com.br/article/57
- http://www.veritatis.com.br/article/1832
etc.

(Use a ferramenta de busca existente do site Veritatis Splendor, para obter outros resultados e artigos interessantes!).

---

Para citar este artigo:

NABETO, Carlos Martins. Apostolado Veritatis Splendor: LEITOR QUESTIONA ARTIGO QUE NEGA A EXISTÊNCIA HISTÓRICA DE CRISTO. Disponível em http://www.veritatis.com.br/article/4697. Desde 5/16/2008.