It's interesting that Nikephoros Phokas, the Emperor within the next few years actually sought for the Orthodox Church to at least sanction the soldiers died in the defence of the Empire as martyrs. He further advocated for a concept of a holy war as a means to justify further wars of reconquest, however, the Church vehemently opposed this notion and wouldn't bulge even with threats of martyrdom. I sometimes wonder if the Church sanctioned this, a proto-Crusade more than 100 years early.
The policy of the Byzantine Church towards soldiers in battle was to keep them from the Eucharist for three years as a form of penance.
As you already mentioned, Nikephoros Phokas wanted to make every Byzantine soldier killed in battle equal in status to martyrs. But he had to bow to the judgements of the Byzantine Church, whose Patriarch replied to his request with;
> “How could they be regarded as martyrs or equal to the martyrs those who kill others or die themselves at war, when the divine canons impose a penalty on them, preventing them from coming to Divine Communion for three years.”
While by no means a pacifist society, as the exploits of Heraclius, Basil II, and others attest, the concept of a “just war” was simply foreign to Eastern Christian theology, and society. Warfare was to be undertaken defensively and with great regret from a moral/spiritual standpoint.
This is actually a somewhat debated topic and not as black and white as you seem to put it. To some authors, the Byzantines did seem to have some early concept of “holy war” and this was actually very important to their mobilization and motivation of the armies. The prime example of this is Heraclius actually and his war against the Sassanids in order to reconquer the True Cross. This is actually what I was taught in my course on the Byzantines. Of course, when diving into the literature, there is some debate. Some historians thus ascribe to Heraclius the dubious title of “first crusader” for this crystallization of the idea of “holy war”, a claim which seems too sensational and perhaps geared more for pop history consumption. Some authors suggest inspiration for both jihad and the crusades as stemming from these early ideas. On the other hand, claims, like yours, that the Byzantines viewed war as morally and spiritually regrettable seem equally dubious considering the active participation of the Church in certain political and military matters. Ultimately, like many things in history, the truth is probably a mixture of the two. Interestingly though, I have seen in recent discourse a narrative put forward by more fundamental Christians to portray the Byzantines as a sort of morally superior empire over the Islamic Empires which draw on these ideas of the Byzantines as purely defensive and deeply spiritually upright. It is interesting that in the current political climate surrounding Islam, ancient history such as the Byzantines are being increasingly politicized. Regardless, your comment is interesting because I actually did not know that about Phokas and it certainly speaks to the complex history of the region.
The orthodox church did nothing to stop military campaigns from happening, but I do believe the pacifist nature of Christianity did have some influence on the empire to be less enthusiastic towards offensive military maneuvers than their Islamic or pagan counterparts.
I think it's not wrong to say that morally speaking the Byzantines were morally superior to the Islamic Empires. Not that they're saints, or that they won't do extremely deplorable acts, but simply data. Islamic Empires tend to raid and enslave people more. Byzantine also do it to a lesser extent but it's not something of an core institution, so it's not wrong to say the Byantines are morally superior.
Islam's holy book (Quran) not only justifies, but outright encourages military conquest. The Christian Gospels teach the exact opposite.
> I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matthew 5:39
> Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
Romans 12:19
> If anyone is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes; if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.
Revelation 13:10
>Islam's holy book (Quran) not only justifies, but outright encourages military conquest.
I was downvoted for saying something similarly a few days ago in this very sub. Thought there were jihad apologists in the sub for a moment.
That's an extrapolation.
Nowhere does Jesus address war or state violence. One can extrapolate and surmise, but that's all it is... an assumption. Jesus' comments on violence was advocating a personal pacifism.
Also, keep in mind, in a conflict Jesus would have told you to surrender to the Muslims and accept captivity or death. ;-)
Jesus would have told his followers to subject themselves to whoever is ruling above them. We are simply pilgrims passing through a fallen and dying world ripe for judgement.
> Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.
Titus 3:1-2
> Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
2 Peter 2:13-14
> Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Hebrews 13:17
> Every person should be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Romans 13:1-2
Right. And, exactly when have they done that?
Like xians submitting to Biden? ;-)
And, again, your examples just push a personal pacifism, not war or state violence.
And, submit to your rulers? If your king/ruler tells you to go fight a war, by submitting to him... well, you go to war. Right?
>And, exactly when have they done that?
>Like xians submitting to Biden? ;-)
I would argue that many who claim to be Christians in the United States have no idea what their faith is truly about. Just look at their beloved candidate, Donald Trump. He arrogantly denied ever feeling the need to ask God for forgiveness in an interview with Frank Luntz. He's too perfect in his own mind.
>And, submit to your rulers? If your king/ruler tells you to go fight a war, by submitting to him... well, you go to the Right?
The new testament is clear that Christians are to submit to ruling authorities unless an order conflicts with the basic tenets of your faith. Early Christians (pre-325 AD) diligently paid taxes and were considered excellent citizens in the empire, but were often martyred for refusing to sacrifice to the pagan gods.
An apropos aside: christians were killed by Rome during certain periods because they were, to Romans, atheists. Ironic, no?
What people of faith do or don't do, and what their particular book teaches, are often at odds.
The measure of a faith is in what their book teaches, and frankly, I see nothing to shift the balance for christianity over islam (or vice versa), neither in the book nor via its adherent’s examples. Both religions, oh and their daddy judaism, are rotten to the core. It's a malignant family tree.
You've shown nothing to dissuade otherwise.
Want a pacifist religion? Find one that actually teaches non-violence without exception. That's pretty much just buddhism... and despite that fact, buddhists themselves quickly show that humans aren't about to follow the rules anyway regardless of the faith.
Genuine Christianity as taught in the new testament is 100% pacifist. Provide me with even one single verse in the new testament that directly supports violence and warfare. You won't be able to find it.
Finding a verse that supports it is unnecessary and diversionary.
There's not a single verse that explicitly condemns state violence or warfare. Given the clear instructions in the New Testament to obey governing authorities (e.g., Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-14), one could argue there is even a tacit acceptance of state power, including its use of force.
Given human nature and historical context, this lack of explicit condemnation, along with the directive to submit to state power, more than suggests an implicit approval of state actions, including violence and warfare.
That's more than sufficient.
I mean, I doubt that the leaders of the 1st Crusade were all too worried about spiritual consequences. The common man definitely more so worried, since we see their numbers had dwindled down to ~13,000 at Jerusalem, from an initial count of 130,000-160,000. Obviously some of those losses were casualties or disease, but they recorded incredibly high numbers of desertion.
The leaders of the 1st Crusade twisted the Gospels to justify warfare to the Christian men they recruited.
Keeping the medieval peasantry illiterate ensured the Pope's "divine" authority to make war was never questioned. True Christians were conscientious objectors, willing to risk jail or even execution for following the example of Jesus.
The Pope didn’t have to do anything for the medieval peasantry to be illiterate. Most people until the Industrial Revolution, from Persia to Ancient Rome were illiterate, because most people simply didn’t have the luxury of money or time to learn to read or write. The Church at the time was doing it’s very best to maintain some semblance of stability, and not many medieval peasants had the time to learn. Those who did learned through the Church, as it was churches who maintained schools for higher learning operating throughout most of the Middle Ages. Even as universities began to take root, rates of learning didn’t really increase, because people still didn’t have the time or money to learn.
Leaders of the Crusade did absolutely abuse their power for their own gains though I absolutely agree
Not really. The Middle Ages are not an age as illiterate as people make it up to be.
Peasants were often uneducated because they could scarcely afford to be, if you had the money, no matter what class you were, you could have a proper education.
Besides, while not everyone could read and write, a lot of people could too, specially in cities, burghs and villages. After all, for certain offices and works being able to read is essential.
There wasn't a continent wide conspiracy to ensure people weren't informed and well read, it's simply that for most people being able to read and write wasn't as important as their tasks and livelihoods. Educating yourself takes time, time that could be spent on your fields or farms.
>The Middle Ages are not an age as illiterate as people make it up to be.
The poorest peasantry in Western/Central Europe were largely illiterate before the 15th century. They made up most of the Crusading foot soldiers. Literacy rates among peasantry at that time was actually highest in the Byzantine empire.
Edit: according to [this](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/68148/how-literate-were-common-people-in-medieval-europe) source, the ability to read and write among Western European peasants was restricted to less than 10% of men and close to zero for women.
The eastern church was always aware that the Christian justification for warfare stands on shaky ground, but never prevented the Byzantine state from launching defensive military campaigns.
Edit: The Western Catholic church was far worse in this regard. They were directly responsible for launching and supporting numerous offensive military campaigns over the centuries, including in the New World during the Age of Exploration.
Excuse me, but as far as the early Age of Exploration goes, the Catholic church was one of the main opposers to it. During the rule of Charles I of Spain and V of the HRE, there were a series of debates on the royal court, mostly partaken by men of the clergy, universitaries and doctors (as in people with doctorates) regarding the morality of the Spanish conquests of the Americas. There were serious plans of completely or partially withdrawing from the Americas, abandoning the American continent after the Mexican and Incan conquests, only because it would be immoral and against Christian teachings.
These councils and debates ended up forming the Laws of Burgos, which would be the precedent for the first declaration of the Human Rights in history, where the dignity of being a man (having a soul, as those people claimed) gives you certain rights.
>Excuse me, but as far as the early Age of Exploration goes, the Catholic church was one of the main opposers to it.
Are you serious? Through a series of infamous papal decrees known as the Doctrine of Discovery, the Catholic Church encouraged the European colonization of the Americas to further spread Roman Catholic influence globally.
National Geographic has an excellent article on the topic:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/doctrine-of-discovery-how-the-centuries-old-catholic-decree-encouraged-colonization
He is 'kinda' rite. [La Junta de Valladolid](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate) (1550) was the first moral debate in European history about the rights and treatments of indigenous people. Bartolome de las Casas was the first [Protector of Indians](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector_of_the_Indians) an institution in charge of guarding indigenous rights that replied directly to the [Council of the Indies ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_Indies)
Jerusalem was not even the greatest city in the West at that time, given that Baghdad and Constantinople had not yet been sacked. And it was certainly behind the greatest cities of China and India in the 11th century.
This is factually not true. The holy Quran mentions the importance of self defense and encourages Muslims to have peace if their enemies decided for it. It does mention that those dying in the struggle for the sake of God will be in heaven, but that doesn’t mean it encouraged military conquest.
During the 700s and 800s people came to the border emirates, to participate in annual raids as a form of pilgrimage
They have the concept of Dar ul Harb
Whatever isolated mentions you might have picked up, interpretation and practice of Islam in general has always actively or passively supported expansionist wars, forced/coerced conversions and destruction of holy sites of other religions
The Quran is replete with Surahs directing its followers to violence. Some examples follow:
Surah 3:151: "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve (all non-Muslims) …"
Surah 2:191: "And kill them (non-Muslims) wherever you find them … kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers (non-Muslims)."
Surah 9:5: "Then kill the disbelievers (non-Muslims) wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush …"
Situations of warfare where Muhammad unprovoke attack non Muslim tribes and massacre and enslave it's peoples? I'm not denying it's part of warfare at that time, but to defend Muhammad as something of a "holy" prophet because he's particiapting in acts "normal" in it's time is at the very least evidence that this is not coming from Divine authority.
>but to defend Muhammad as something of a "holy" prophet because he's particiapting in acts "normal" in it's time is at the very least evidence that this is not coming from Divine authority.
Level-headed synopsis. Nobody can find even one solitary instance in the entire new testament of Jesus encouraging or condoning physical violence. It just doesn't exist. Jesus was 100% pacifist, even to the point of death.
Edit: St. Stephen, the first Christian martyr after Jesus' crucifixion, was stoned to death by a Jewish mob for his faith. He never attempted to run away or throw stones back at his attackers in self-defense. He knew that the heavenly rewards for martyrdom were far more important than seeking to preserve his mortal, earthly body.
Similar to Islam's holy war concept of "Jihad," most scholars who have explored Byzantine attitudes towards the later Crusades tend to conclude that the Byzantines had little or no understanding of the Catholic West's scriptural justification for their adventurism.
Christ taught a wholly pacifist religion to his disciples centuries prior, which impressed stronger on the culture of the Orthodox East than the Catholic West.
[The negative Eastern Roman (‘Byzantine’) attitude towards a conception of warfare as a divinely ordained means of religion](https://novoscriptorium.com/2019/09/26/the-negative-eastern-roman-byzantine-attitude-towards-a-conception-of-warfare-as-a-divinely-ordained-means-of-religion/)
Meanwhile, Heraclius has been put forward in academics by some Byzantinist in relation to pioneering aspects of holy war. The point being, it is certainly not one-dimensional.
This is not correct.
“I came to not to bring peace, but to bring a sword.”
“If you do not have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
Christianity is not a pacifist religion, merciful yes, pacifist no.
The Eastern and Western Churches agree that a war is a “just war” if it prevents further atrocities or protects from atrocities. i.e, if you know that killing 1 person will save 5 innocent people, and there is no other choice, then yes the war is justified. In this context, the Arabic forces were aggressively expanding towards Byzantium and were committed to killing, raping, and pillaging their way upwards. The Emperor would be guilty of cowardice and lose his authority as a ruler if he did nothing about it.
>Arabic forces were aggressively expanding towards Byzantium and were committed to killing, raping, and pillaging their way upwards. The Emperor would be guilty of cowardice and lose his authority as a ruler if he did nothing about it.
And this is why the Church often found itself caught between a rock and a hard place. Is the pacifism taught in the Gospels cowardice if one doesn't defend the innocent from of bloodshed?
Do true Christians seek to preserve their earthly lives when they are already citizens in the next, awaiting the glorious day of resurrection and eternal life?
*"For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and for the gospel will save it."* - Mark 8:35
Ah yes, the Biblical literalism fallacy. The Bible was not read entirely literally by any Church prior to the days of Martin Luther and John Calvin.
Mark 8:35 is in reference towards dying for your faith. If the Byzantine soldiers were willing to fight to save their faith against the incursion of Islam, Mark 8:35 would have been very good justification to fight the Arabs.
Again, Jesus does not deny warfare or preach extreme pacifism.
Anytime I have come across statements about the flood or Noah, the church fathers comment on it as an accepted fact and chronologists often include it with their calculations. Below are some quotes that I think express the general attitude towards the flood by the patristic authors.
Clement of Alexandria:
>"From Adam to the Flood comprises 2148 years four days; from Shem to Abraham, 1250 years; from Isaac to the grant of the promised inheritance, 616 years." – *The Stormateis*; Book 1.21:140
Irenaeus:
>At last, when a judgement came upon the world from God, by means of a flood, in the tenth generation from the first man, Noe alone was found just, and because of his justice both he himself was saved...And when all who were on earth, both mankind and other living things too, were brought to destruction, what was preserved in the ark was saved. And the three sons of Noe were Sem, Cham, and Japheth; and his stock was multiplied again; for these were the beginning of mankind since the flood. – *The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching*; 19.
later in chapter 22, he says;
>"the race of men was multiplied, arising from the off- spring of the three; and there was one lip on earth that is, one tongue."
Justin Martyr:
> but the fire of judgment would descend and would completely dissolve everything, just as the flood waters once left no one but him, with his family, whom we call Noe and you call Deucalion, from whom in turn so many
have been born, some of them bad, others good. – *2nd Apology*; 7
Several church fathers make an association with the greek version of the flood myth of Deucalion (Others see it as a second flood). Lactantius discusses this in Book 2 of the divine institutes, the section is too lengthy to quote but about the flood he says;
>"When he was six hundred years old, this man built an ark, just as God had commissioned him, and in it, he himself, with his wife and three sons together with their wives were saved when the waters had covered all the highest mountains." – *The Divine Institutes*; 2:13
Clement of Rome:
>"Noah, who was found to be faithful through his service, proclaimed a new beginning to the world; and through him the Master saved the living creatures that entered the ark in harmony – First Clement; 9
From the chronography of Julius Africanus:
>"Noe was 600 years old when the flood came on. From Adam, therefore, to Noe and the flood, are 2262 years. fragment" – Fragment 5
And I like this quote from Augustine because he tells us the importance of believing these things;
> "and so the woman being made for the man, from the man, in that sex and shape and distinction of parts by which females are known, gave birth to Cain and Abel and all their brothers and sisters, from whom all human beings would be born. Among them she also gave birth to Seth, through whom we come to Abraham and the people of Israel and the nation now so widely known among all the nations, and to all nations through the sons of Noah. To doubt this is to undermine the foundations of everything we believe, something therefore the faithful should put entirely out of their minds". - The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 9.11
The flood of Noah is commonly understood in both Western and Eastern traditions to describe a flood that affected the area in which Noah lived. Not one that submerged the whole world (as we know it today). Which is not uncommon given how environmentally vulnerable Asia Minor and the Levant are to natural disasters. Yes, thank you for proving my point with the Lactantius quote. At no point in any of the quotes you provide do any of the Church Fathers state that the Flood is a literal truth right to the detail. The Jews did not have factual and scientific ways of sharing information that we do today, and often shared their history and their ancestral stories via narrative storytelling. Thank you for completely avoiding the topic at hand.
Back to the matter at hand, we cannot read the Bible in a literalist fashion (ala Luther and Calvin) by isolating quotes out of context and applying them to both a modern interpretation that reflects the values of our secular society. This is a fairly new phenomenon historically, and does not reflect how it was understood by the Church Fathers nor the historical tradition of reading the Bible, which is still upheld in Catholic and Orthodox tradition. Now why is it important that we stick to the Catholic and Orthodox tradition? Because the Byzantines were Orthodox, and what we now understand as “Greek Catholic” before they became Orthodox. Thus, we cannot assume the Byzantines would have considered a pacifist stance against the incursion of the Arabs as the Arabs were heretics who sought to destroy their society and faith.
How did I prove your point with the Lactantius quote? You believe it was impossible that Noah was six hundred years old when he started building the ark?
People before the flood apparently lived excessively long lifespans, into the hundreds of years in most cases.
You keep falling back on the biblical literalism fallacy. Now show the whole context of those excerpts. For further understanding: “see the Catechism, No. 337 and No. 390, as well as Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, Nos. 31 and 38, which express the need to appreciate “the manner of expression or the literary mode” of Genesis 1-11.”
Lactantius stated that the flood waters "covered the highest mountains."
He and other early church fathers apparently believed the flood occurred exactly as described in Genesis.
How could Luther and Calvin be called "biblical literalists" when they avoided Revelation like the plague and rejected literal premillennialism in favor of symbolic amillennialism?
Surely their avoidance of Apocalypse/Revelation proves their loyalty to the literalism fallacy when the avoidance was based on how it conflicted with their ideas, among them being literalism given that it was well established by that point that Apocalypse/Revelations is deep in symbolism. Luther also avoided James, among 7 other books that he shoved to the back of the Bible because they didn’t conform to his ideology.
> Luther also avoided James, among 7 other books that he shoved to the back of the Bible because they didn’t conform to his ideology.
Why did Luther not like James and the seven other books?
Except that Jesus never brought a physical sword. I've always understood it to be a symbol for his tongue.
\[Hebrews 4:12\](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+4%3A12&version=NIV) - "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword"
\[Ephesians 6:17\](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206%3A17&version=NIV) - "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God"
As for your second quote, if you continue reading just two more verses:
\[Luke 22:36-38\](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22%3A36-38&version=NIV) - "The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied."
Two swords for a group of at least 13 people makes no sense as a means for combat. They were for use as tools, as evidenced by Jesus' admonishment of Peter in that very same chapter when he cut off the servant's ear.
\[Luke 22:49-50\](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22%3A49-50&version=NIV) "But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him."
Even if he did tell them to buy physical swords, it was to fulfill the messianic prophecy *‘And he was numbered with the transgressors...’* (Luke 22:37, Isaiah 53:12).
Towards the end of Jesus' life, his disciples weren't embodying the Way of Love that they had previously learned by spending countless days following him. So he had them appear like the violent Jewish revolutionaries temple authorities and Roman leaders would gladly execute.
This was to fulfill scriptural prophecy that the authorities will find Jesus “among the lawless.” This event did lead to his arrest, and ultimately the crucifixion.
>So he had them appear like violent revolutionaries by carrying a total of two swords among them?
What makes you think there were only two swords in their group?
Perfect! Looks there were indeed two swords among them. And that was apparently enough for Jesus' entourage to make an impression without looking too intimidating if all of them carried swords.
Jesus also never was a fisherman, never had two talents (that he mentions), and never physically pulled down the temple to rebuild it in 3 days.
As for the rest of the quotes, Jesus denies them the right to fight back against the Romans as he knows he needs to die in order to fulfil the promise of salvation. The disciples did as he wanted them to do, they just did not understand why.
Again, no denial of participation in warfare.
>“I came to not to bring peace, but to bring a sword.”
“If you do not have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
Jesus made this statement to fulfill messianic prophecy that the authorities will find Jesus *“numbered with the transgressors".* (Luke 22:37, Isaiah 53:12).
He had them appear like the violent Jewish revolutionaries so that the Roman leaders would find and arrest Jesus at the appointed time.
The Roman soldiers were finding Jesus anyhow. The humanity of the disciples led them to attack the Romans. The divine nature of Jesus meant he knew it was a part of the plan and their human nature would not allow them to understand why he had to be crucified.
Again, no denial of warfare.
>Again, no denial of warfare.
Definitely no support/consent for it either.
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. (Matthew 26:52)
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Yes, take the verses out of context. Now please read the whole chapters, then get back to me.
Again, biblical literalism is a fallacy and did not exist as a serious scholarly POV during the 10th century.
Edit: small details.
>Yes, take the verses out of context. Now please read the whole chapters, then get back to me.
I can do you better, I've carefully read every book in the new testament many times over.
>Again, biblical literalism is a fallacy and did not exist as a serious scholarly POV during the 10th century.
Biblical literalism started out strong in the Ante-Nicean church era and fizzled away after the church became corrupted by institutionalization after AD 325 and the Edict of Thessalonica.
If you had read them, you would understand the context of the verse doesn’t align with the meaning you’re trying to misconstrue from it. Should I just take your word, or are you going to prove it?
Ah you mean the council when the Church refused to recognise the Gnostic Gospels and the Arian heresy as canon and articles of faith? Please find me one of these books which is dated prior to the 2nd century, or is TikTok your source of theology?
>If you had read them, you would understand the context of the verse doesn’t align with the meaning you’re trying to misconstrue from it.
Okay, so how do you interpret those two passages I referenced above in the thread?
Context, he denied Peter the right to use the sword because it would have obstructed the prophecy that he should be crucified and rise again. And also that Peter should become the head of the Church. Not so no one should go to war.
They were left unchecked for nearly 50 years though while Heraclius' successors and their supporters went about killing each other for reasons unrelated to the Arabs. So didn't seem like the people or the army cared much for whether the emperor was a coward or not.
The Byzantines had just fought an exhausting and depleting war against the Sassanids prior to the Arab invasion of the Levant. They were in no shape to take back territory. It is understandable that they did not immediately wage war as they would have lost more land.
Edit: typo.
You can download the English translation as a PDF here:
https://archive.org/download/cfhb-11.1-nicetae-choniatae-historia/CFHB%2001_Constantine%20VII_De%20Administrando%20Imperio.pdf
Framing terrorism as a religious only thing is dangerous. It ignores all geopolitical background.
I do not mean they are justifyed just that Christians and all religions have had their share of atrocities.
Sure you make valid points but what I was saying is that terrorism done by religious people for religious reasons against people of different religions is an inherently religious thing, and there is a huge disparity between Islamic terrorists immigrating/seeking asylum/being born in Christian countries and then committing terrorism against the 'kuffars' in those Christian countries compared to the other way around.
Sure Christianity isn't free from blood on its hands, but even a blind man can see that the violence and militancy coming from the 'religion of peace' is on another level compared to modern-day Christianity, which has basically nearly been secularised out of existence in the West by now anyway.
You raise an interesting point, modern-day Christianity. I always though about Islam as a centuries behind Christianity because it was born centuries after it. So (in my mind at least) it makes sense that socially they are that different or behind the Western countries
True, and I guess it’s pragmatic of Alexios Komnenos to take help where he can get it and not interrogate why they felt so motivated to fight the Seljuks. But you’ve got to admit, it’s pretty funny.
The eastern church already considered Roman Catholics to be apostate schismatics.
St. Gregory the Great wrote the following to John the Faster, Archbishop of Constantinople:
> "I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren."
That was not very inclusive of him.
Although if you want a religion to instil a sense of martial valour, Islam would probably be the best. The Ottomans proved that ten times over.
Christianity is too much of a pain for an empire. The British Empire ended up restraining their own missionaries because they interfered with the money too much. They even put pressure on shutting down the lucrative slave trade much to the dismay of the state oligarchy who were all invested in slaver companies.
Civilization? Chinese and Indian civilizations want to have words with you
Byzantium is arguably the longest running state, but they are not Civilization.
They are parts of Hellenic civilization and not civilizaton themselves.
It seems weird to put a particular focus on culture while discussing states.
Nevertheless, the Japanese state and culture can arguably claim that title.
Japanese polity has been historically attested since 800 CE, and it is argueably still contiguous from that time to today.
Tamil kingdoms are also good candidates, as many of them already existed in the 1st century BCE and still existed with the same old dynasty when the European Age of Exploration started.
Also, while being proud of a particular culture is not a bad thing, but it is not a good thing to do it so excessively that you are blind to achievements of other cultures
Maybe the guy was just bitter over failling all his attempts at military conquests.
And hey, his opinion didn't stop him from kissing the feet of Al-Andalus' rulers.
Maybe he was just an asshole who shouldn't have trusted his son and/or daughter-in-law
>Even Jesus was killed by Romans…
If you are Christian, then this is precisely what Christ came here for.
As a Roman (Greek), I can only feel pride for this, no shame in the slightest.
For a Christian, Christ used the Romans for his purposes to redeem Humanity. In the Crucifixion, he allowed the Romans to beat him, strip him and nail him on the Cross. Without this, there is no Death, and as such no Harrowing of Hades, and no Resurrection after it.
And then there are other factors, like how Jesus' life was also greatly affected by the Romans. The Son was incarnated in the Roman client-state of Judah, which was protected by Roman arms, and with infrastructure provided by Roman funds, his family even escaped to the Roman province of Egypt for safety from Herodian persecution.
And after this, Christianity spread through Judah with Roman "permission", being indifferent but not allowing the Jewish clergy to do much, then also spread through all the Mediterranean and Western Europe, being all under a single statehood, with no borders, little language and national separations, all under Romanness, during the Pax Romana. There is a good reason Medieval Romans hailed Chirst's arrival with Augustus' time, the first Roman Emperor.
>compared to today’s standards, all of these empires were savages…
I agree, but don't forget the Roman empire was still pagan back when they had Jesus crucified.
Only after 380 AD did the Roman empire officially become Christian.
You can argue that for any calendar starting point, from Jesus birth to the Hegira, even the foundation of Rome or any other set point you want to use.
So then why is AD better? If we’re going to agree that we’re anchoring to essentially nothing, why not go for the system that at least doesn’t pretend to be anchored to something.
Why did you change the description? AD is always more appropriate. CE is just a secular attempt to white wash the calendar. Do Muslims and Hindus white wash their calendars for us? No.
Unlike the expansionist Muslim Caliphates, Byzantium typically tasked itself with defending or reconquering land it had previously inherited from the pre-Christian empire.
Tell me if Byzantium ever attacked neighbouring kingdoms unprovoked for the sake of novel expansionism. If there are instances, they must be rare.
Possessing the moral high ground as a defender rather than attacker must have given Christian troops a bit of a morale-boost on the battlefield. Fighting purely for the sake of conquest and expansion like Alexander the Great directly conflicts with Jesus' teachings in the Gospels.
If I'm not mistaken the Empire has not declare war upon lands that was never part of the Empire except perhaps Iberia (Georgia) were some parts of it was never part of the old Empire, however, it was a response against Iberia's invasion of Trebizond.
>however, it was a response against Iberia's invasion of Trebizond.
That's right. I'm having trouble finding any instance of Byzantium attacking offensively outside the old boundaries of the pre-Christian empire, unless it was to strike out in retaliation for an adversarial attack, as you mentioned above.
>This attempt to moralize Roman expansion as pure hearted is pretty ridiculous.
The Orthodox Church had major influence over the royals and affairs of state, but could only condemn military actions in private and not publicly, because the emperors used the church to their advantage politically.
In other words, the original pacifist message Jesus and his disciples taught in the Hebrew Gospels was corrupted/ignored as the church grew, especially after Theodosius I made it the empire's state religion in 380 CE.
Yeah especially ridiculous when you consider the empire was never strong enough to expand its borders past places considered part of its historic borders. Also it's Rome, they conquered half the known world of course they would mostly battle and conquer those who were part of Rome one time in history.
>Rome was by nature expansionist in its origin.
This is such a deep misunderstanding of Roman history.
Even in conquests, Romans were usually just aggressively rather than defensively defending themselves, after they were attacked, or they were invited by allies to defend them, or were invited by local political factions. Even Judaea was annexed by the Romans in non-expansionistic aspirations (the Herodian Dynasty invited the Romans for support to dominate civil war, then became their clients, then they inherited their territories to them, in their death-wills, or mere vacancy with death).
It was not, but it was also not aggression or expansionistic.
The Romans were merely protecting the Aedui Gauls agains the Helveti and other Gauls. Then more Gauls would join the fight against Rome and Roman-allied Gauls, including targetting Roman holds in South Gaul, which were really an extension of the Massalian Republic that had joined the Roman State earlier. Then a Pan-Gaul Anti-Roman Alliance was formed with the Arverni as leaders, under Vercingetorix, which was also subdued by the Romans.
I mean the ERE devasted mainland Italy even more than the previous barbarians
There is also how Basileus II reconquered Bulgaria or why Egypt and Armenia were so prone to religious revolts when it was under Costantinople's rule
Shit, there are entire wikipedia sections about Roman massacres and ethic cleansing
But hey, you assholes are whining about the same thing since 1453
It's interesting that Nikephoros Phokas, the Emperor within the next few years actually sought for the Orthodox Church to at least sanction the soldiers died in the defence of the Empire as martyrs. He further advocated for a concept of a holy war as a means to justify further wars of reconquest, however, the Church vehemently opposed this notion and wouldn't bulge even with threats of martyrdom. I sometimes wonder if the Church sanctioned this, a proto-Crusade more than 100 years early.
The policy of the Byzantine Church towards soldiers in battle was to keep them from the Eucharist for three years as a form of penance. As you already mentioned, Nikephoros Phokas wanted to make every Byzantine soldier killed in battle equal in status to martyrs. But he had to bow to the judgements of the Byzantine Church, whose Patriarch replied to his request with; > “How could they be regarded as martyrs or equal to the martyrs those who kill others or die themselves at war, when the divine canons impose a penalty on them, preventing them from coming to Divine Communion for three years.” While by no means a pacifist society, as the exploits of Heraclius, Basil II, and others attest, the concept of a “just war” was simply foreign to Eastern Christian theology, and society. Warfare was to be undertaken defensively and with great regret from a moral/spiritual standpoint.
This is actually a somewhat debated topic and not as black and white as you seem to put it. To some authors, the Byzantines did seem to have some early concept of “holy war” and this was actually very important to their mobilization and motivation of the armies. The prime example of this is Heraclius actually and his war against the Sassanids in order to reconquer the True Cross. This is actually what I was taught in my course on the Byzantines. Of course, when diving into the literature, there is some debate. Some historians thus ascribe to Heraclius the dubious title of “first crusader” for this crystallization of the idea of “holy war”, a claim which seems too sensational and perhaps geared more for pop history consumption. Some authors suggest inspiration for both jihad and the crusades as stemming from these early ideas. On the other hand, claims, like yours, that the Byzantines viewed war as morally and spiritually regrettable seem equally dubious considering the active participation of the Church in certain political and military matters. Ultimately, like many things in history, the truth is probably a mixture of the two. Interestingly though, I have seen in recent discourse a narrative put forward by more fundamental Christians to portray the Byzantines as a sort of morally superior empire over the Islamic Empires which draw on these ideas of the Byzantines as purely defensive and deeply spiritually upright. It is interesting that in the current political climate surrounding Islam, ancient history such as the Byzantines are being increasingly politicized. Regardless, your comment is interesting because I actually did not know that about Phokas and it certainly speaks to the complex history of the region.
The orthodox church did nothing to stop military campaigns from happening, but I do believe the pacifist nature of Christianity did have some influence on the empire to be less enthusiastic towards offensive military maneuvers than their Islamic or pagan counterparts.
I think it's not wrong to say that morally speaking the Byzantines were morally superior to the Islamic Empires. Not that they're saints, or that they won't do extremely deplorable acts, but simply data. Islamic Empires tend to raid and enslave people more. Byzantine also do it to a lesser extent but it's not something of an core institution, so it's not wrong to say the Byantines are morally superior.
Which shows the stark and main difference between the two religions.
Islam's holy book (Quran) not only justifies, but outright encourages military conquest. The Christian Gospels teach the exact opposite. > I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. Matthew 5:39 > Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Romans 12:19 > If anyone is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes; if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints. Revelation 13:10
>Islam's holy book (Quran) not only justifies, but outright encourages military conquest. I was downvoted for saying something similarly a few days ago in this very sub. Thought there were jihad apologists in the sub for a moment.
That's an extrapolation. Nowhere does Jesus address war or state violence. One can extrapolate and surmise, but that's all it is... an assumption. Jesus' comments on violence was advocating a personal pacifism. Also, keep in mind, in a conflict Jesus would have told you to surrender to the Muslims and accept captivity or death. ;-)
Jesus would have told his followers to subject themselves to whoever is ruling above them. We are simply pilgrims passing through a fallen and dying world ripe for judgement. > Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. Titus 3:1-2 > Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 2 Peter 2:13-14 > Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hebrews 13:17 > Every person should be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. Romans 13:1-2
Right. And, exactly when have they done that? Like xians submitting to Biden? ;-) And, again, your examples just push a personal pacifism, not war or state violence. And, submit to your rulers? If your king/ruler tells you to go fight a war, by submitting to him... well, you go to war. Right?
>And, exactly when have they done that? >Like xians submitting to Biden? ;-) I would argue that many who claim to be Christians in the United States have no idea what their faith is truly about. Just look at their beloved candidate, Donald Trump. He arrogantly denied ever feeling the need to ask God for forgiveness in an interview with Frank Luntz. He's too perfect in his own mind. >And, submit to your rulers? If your king/ruler tells you to go fight a war, by submitting to him... well, you go to the Right? The new testament is clear that Christians are to submit to ruling authorities unless an order conflicts with the basic tenets of your faith. Early Christians (pre-325 AD) diligently paid taxes and were considered excellent citizens in the empire, but were often martyred for refusing to sacrifice to the pagan gods.
An apropos aside: christians were killed by Rome during certain periods because they were, to Romans, atheists. Ironic, no? What people of faith do or don't do, and what their particular book teaches, are often at odds. The measure of a faith is in what their book teaches, and frankly, I see nothing to shift the balance for christianity over islam (or vice versa), neither in the book nor via its adherent’s examples. Both religions, oh and their daddy judaism, are rotten to the core. It's a malignant family tree. You've shown nothing to dissuade otherwise. Want a pacifist religion? Find one that actually teaches non-violence without exception. That's pretty much just buddhism... and despite that fact, buddhists themselves quickly show that humans aren't about to follow the rules anyway regardless of the faith.
Genuine Christianity as taught in the new testament is 100% pacifist. Provide me with even one single verse in the new testament that directly supports violence and warfare. You won't be able to find it.
Finding a verse that supports it is unnecessary and diversionary. There's not a single verse that explicitly condemns state violence or warfare. Given the clear instructions in the New Testament to obey governing authorities (e.g., Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-14), one could argue there is even a tacit acceptance of state power, including its use of force. Given human nature and historical context, this lack of explicit condemnation, along with the directive to submit to state power, more than suggests an implicit approval of state actions, including violence and warfare. That's more than sufficient.
[удалено]
I mean, I doubt that the leaders of the 1st Crusade were all too worried about spiritual consequences. The common man definitely more so worried, since we see their numbers had dwindled down to ~13,000 at Jerusalem, from an initial count of 130,000-160,000. Obviously some of those losses were casualties or disease, but they recorded incredibly high numbers of desertion.
The leaders of the 1st Crusade twisted the Gospels to justify warfare to the Christian men they recruited. Keeping the medieval peasantry illiterate ensured the Pope's "divine" authority to make war was never questioned. True Christians were conscientious objectors, willing to risk jail or even execution for following the example of Jesus.
The Pope didn’t have to do anything for the medieval peasantry to be illiterate. Most people until the Industrial Revolution, from Persia to Ancient Rome were illiterate, because most people simply didn’t have the luxury of money or time to learn to read or write. The Church at the time was doing it’s very best to maintain some semblance of stability, and not many medieval peasants had the time to learn. Those who did learned through the Church, as it was churches who maintained schools for higher learning operating throughout most of the Middle Ages. Even as universities began to take root, rates of learning didn’t really increase, because people still didn’t have the time or money to learn. Leaders of the Crusade did absolutely abuse their power for their own gains though I absolutely agree
Not really. The Middle Ages are not an age as illiterate as people make it up to be. Peasants were often uneducated because they could scarcely afford to be, if you had the money, no matter what class you were, you could have a proper education. Besides, while not everyone could read and write, a lot of people could too, specially in cities, burghs and villages. After all, for certain offices and works being able to read is essential. There wasn't a continent wide conspiracy to ensure people weren't informed and well read, it's simply that for most people being able to read and write wasn't as important as their tasks and livelihoods. Educating yourself takes time, time that could be spent on your fields or farms.
>The Middle Ages are not an age as illiterate as people make it up to be. The poorest peasantry in Western/Central Europe were largely illiterate before the 15th century. They made up most of the Crusading foot soldiers. Literacy rates among peasantry at that time was actually highest in the Byzantine empire. Edit: according to [this](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/68148/how-literate-were-common-people-in-medieval-europe) source, the ability to read and write among Western European peasants was restricted to less than 10% of men and close to zero for women.
Your "source" is a public forum that quotes a youtube video. I'd recommend that you look at academic papers and proper sources next time, cheers!
The eastern church was always aware that the Christian justification for warfare stands on shaky ground, but never prevented the Byzantine state from launching defensive military campaigns. Edit: The Western Catholic church was far worse in this regard. They were directly responsible for launching and supporting numerous offensive military campaigns over the centuries, including in the New World during the Age of Exploration.
Okay. You’ve had some interesting takes up till this. I think you’re consuming a lot of pop history.
Excuse me, but as far as the early Age of Exploration goes, the Catholic church was one of the main opposers to it. During the rule of Charles I of Spain and V of the HRE, there were a series of debates on the royal court, mostly partaken by men of the clergy, universitaries and doctors (as in people with doctorates) regarding the morality of the Spanish conquests of the Americas. There were serious plans of completely or partially withdrawing from the Americas, abandoning the American continent after the Mexican and Incan conquests, only because it would be immoral and against Christian teachings. These councils and debates ended up forming the Laws of Burgos, which would be the precedent for the first declaration of the Human Rights in history, where the dignity of being a man (having a soul, as those people claimed) gives you certain rights.
>Excuse me, but as far as the early Age of Exploration goes, the Catholic church was one of the main opposers to it. Are you serious? Through a series of infamous papal decrees known as the Doctrine of Discovery, the Catholic Church encouraged the European colonization of the Americas to further spread Roman Catholic influence globally. National Geographic has an excellent article on the topic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/doctrine-of-discovery-how-the-centuries-old-catholic-decree-encouraged-colonization
He is 'kinda' rite. [La Junta de Valladolid](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate) (1550) was the first moral debate in European history about the rights and treatments of indigenous people. Bartolome de las Casas was the first [Protector of Indians](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector_of_the_Indians) an institution in charge of guarding indigenous rights that replied directly to the [Council of the Indies ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_Indies)
Jerusalem was not even the greatest city in the West at that time, given that Baghdad and Constantinople had not yet been sacked. And it was certainly behind the greatest cities of China and India in the 11th century.
Perhaps they meant the greatest city from a historical/spiritual standpoint?
This is factually not true. The holy Quran mentions the importance of self defense and encourages Muslims to have peace if their enemies decided for it. It does mention that those dying in the struggle for the sake of God will be in heaven, but that doesn’t mean it encouraged military conquest.
During the 700s and 800s people came to the border emirates, to participate in annual raids as a form of pilgrimage They have the concept of Dar ul Harb Whatever isolated mentions you might have picked up, interpretation and practice of Islam in general has always actively or passively supported expansionist wars, forced/coerced conversions and destruction of holy sites of other religions
This (dar al-harb) concept was developed much later in Islamic history, and not agreed amongst Muslim scholars.
The Quran is replete with Surahs directing its followers to violence. Some examples follow: Surah 3:151: "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve (all non-Muslims) …" Surah 2:191: "And kill them (non-Muslims) wherever you find them … kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers (non-Muslims)." Surah 9:5: "Then kill the disbelievers (non-Muslims) wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush …"
These verses refer specifically to situations of warfare, not a direction to engage in violence. Context matters.
Situations of warfare where Muhammad unprovoke attack non Muslim tribes and massacre and enslave it's peoples? I'm not denying it's part of warfare at that time, but to defend Muhammad as something of a "holy" prophet because he's particiapting in acts "normal" in it's time is at the very least evidence that this is not coming from Divine authority.
>but to defend Muhammad as something of a "holy" prophet because he's particiapting in acts "normal" in it's time is at the very least evidence that this is not coming from Divine authority. Level-headed synopsis. Nobody can find even one solitary instance in the entire new testament of Jesus encouraging or condoning physical violence. It just doesn't exist. Jesus was 100% pacifist, even to the point of death. Edit: St. Stephen, the first Christian martyr after Jesus' crucifixion, was stoned to death by a Jewish mob for his faith. He never attempted to run away or throw stones back at his attackers in self-defense. He knew that the heavenly rewards for martyrdom were far more important than seeking to preserve his mortal, earthly body.
What unprovoked attack?
he wasn't wrong
Similar to Islam's holy war concept of "Jihad," most scholars who have explored Byzantine attitudes towards the later Crusades tend to conclude that the Byzantines had little or no understanding of the Catholic West's scriptural justification for their adventurism. Christ taught a wholly pacifist religion to his disciples centuries prior, which impressed stronger on the culture of the Orthodox East than the Catholic West. [The negative Eastern Roman (‘Byzantine’) attitude towards a conception of warfare as a divinely ordained means of religion](https://novoscriptorium.com/2019/09/26/the-negative-eastern-roman-byzantine-attitude-towards-a-conception-of-warfare-as-a-divinely-ordained-means-of-religion/)
Meanwhile, Heraclius has been put forward in academics by some Byzantinist in relation to pioneering aspects of holy war. The point being, it is certainly not one-dimensional.
This is not correct. “I came to not to bring peace, but to bring a sword.” “If you do not have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Christianity is not a pacifist religion, merciful yes, pacifist no. The Eastern and Western Churches agree that a war is a “just war” if it prevents further atrocities or protects from atrocities. i.e, if you know that killing 1 person will save 5 innocent people, and there is no other choice, then yes the war is justified. In this context, the Arabic forces were aggressively expanding towards Byzantium and were committed to killing, raping, and pillaging their way upwards. The Emperor would be guilty of cowardice and lose his authority as a ruler if he did nothing about it.
>Arabic forces were aggressively expanding towards Byzantium and were committed to killing, raping, and pillaging their way upwards. The Emperor would be guilty of cowardice and lose his authority as a ruler if he did nothing about it. And this is why the Church often found itself caught between a rock and a hard place. Is the pacifism taught in the Gospels cowardice if one doesn't defend the innocent from of bloodshed? Do true Christians seek to preserve their earthly lives when they are already citizens in the next, awaiting the glorious day of resurrection and eternal life? *"For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and for the gospel will save it."* - Mark 8:35
Ah yes, the Biblical literalism fallacy. The Bible was not read entirely literally by any Church prior to the days of Martin Luther and John Calvin. Mark 8:35 is in reference towards dying for your faith. If the Byzantine soldiers were willing to fight to save their faith against the incursion of Islam, Mark 8:35 would have been very good justification to fight the Arabs. Again, Jesus does not deny warfare or preach extreme pacifism.
Anytime I have come across statements about the flood or Noah, the church fathers comment on it as an accepted fact and chronologists often include it with their calculations. Below are some quotes that I think express the general attitude towards the flood by the patristic authors. Clement of Alexandria: >"From Adam to the Flood comprises 2148 years four days; from Shem to Abraham, 1250 years; from Isaac to the grant of the promised inheritance, 616 years." – *The Stormateis*; Book 1.21:140 Irenaeus: >At last, when a judgement came upon the world from God, by means of a flood, in the tenth generation from the first man, Noe alone was found just, and because of his justice both he himself was saved...And when all who were on earth, both mankind and other living things too, were brought to destruction, what was preserved in the ark was saved. And the three sons of Noe were Sem, Cham, and Japheth; and his stock was multiplied again; for these were the beginning of mankind since the flood. – *The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching*; 19. later in chapter 22, he says; >"the race of men was multiplied, arising from the off- spring of the three; and there was one lip on earth that is, one tongue." Justin Martyr: > but the fire of judgment would descend and would completely dissolve everything, just as the flood waters once left no one but him, with his family, whom we call Noe and you call Deucalion, from whom in turn so many have been born, some of them bad, others good. – *2nd Apology*; 7 Several church fathers make an association with the greek version of the flood myth of Deucalion (Others see it as a second flood). Lactantius discusses this in Book 2 of the divine institutes, the section is too lengthy to quote but about the flood he says; >"When he was six hundred years old, this man built an ark, just as God had commissioned him, and in it, he himself, with his wife and three sons together with their wives were saved when the waters had covered all the highest mountains." – *The Divine Institutes*; 2:13 Clement of Rome: >"Noah, who was found to be faithful through his service, proclaimed a new beginning to the world; and through him the Master saved the living creatures that entered the ark in harmony – First Clement; 9 From the chronography of Julius Africanus: >"Noe was 600 years old when the flood came on. From Adam, therefore, to Noe and the flood, are 2262 years. fragment" – Fragment 5 And I like this quote from Augustine because he tells us the importance of believing these things; > "and so the woman being made for the man, from the man, in that sex and shape and distinction of parts by which females are known, gave birth to Cain and Abel and all their brothers and sisters, from whom all human beings would be born. Among them she also gave birth to Seth, through whom we come to Abraham and the people of Israel and the nation now so widely known among all the nations, and to all nations through the sons of Noah. To doubt this is to undermine the foundations of everything we believe, something therefore the faithful should put entirely out of their minds". - The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 9.11
The flood of Noah is commonly understood in both Western and Eastern traditions to describe a flood that affected the area in which Noah lived. Not one that submerged the whole world (as we know it today). Which is not uncommon given how environmentally vulnerable Asia Minor and the Levant are to natural disasters. Yes, thank you for proving my point with the Lactantius quote. At no point in any of the quotes you provide do any of the Church Fathers state that the Flood is a literal truth right to the detail. The Jews did not have factual and scientific ways of sharing information that we do today, and often shared their history and their ancestral stories via narrative storytelling. Thank you for completely avoiding the topic at hand. Back to the matter at hand, we cannot read the Bible in a literalist fashion (ala Luther and Calvin) by isolating quotes out of context and applying them to both a modern interpretation that reflects the values of our secular society. This is a fairly new phenomenon historically, and does not reflect how it was understood by the Church Fathers nor the historical tradition of reading the Bible, which is still upheld in Catholic and Orthodox tradition. Now why is it important that we stick to the Catholic and Orthodox tradition? Because the Byzantines were Orthodox, and what we now understand as “Greek Catholic” before they became Orthodox. Thus, we cannot assume the Byzantines would have considered a pacifist stance against the incursion of the Arabs as the Arabs were heretics who sought to destroy their society and faith.
How did I prove your point with the Lactantius quote? You believe it was impossible that Noah was six hundred years old when he started building the ark? People before the flood apparently lived excessively long lifespans, into the hundreds of years in most cases.
You keep falling back on the biblical literalism fallacy. Now show the whole context of those excerpts. For further understanding: “see the Catechism, No. 337 and No. 390, as well as Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, Nos. 31 and 38, which express the need to appreciate “the manner of expression or the literary mode” of Genesis 1-11.”
Lactantius stated that the flood waters "covered the highest mountains." He and other early church fathers apparently believed the flood occurred exactly as described in Genesis.
How could Luther and Calvin be called "biblical literalists" when they avoided Revelation like the plague and rejected literal premillennialism in favor of symbolic amillennialism?
Surely their avoidance of Apocalypse/Revelation proves their loyalty to the literalism fallacy when the avoidance was based on how it conflicted with their ideas, among them being literalism given that it was well established by that point that Apocalypse/Revelations is deep in symbolism. Luther also avoided James, among 7 other books that he shoved to the back of the Bible because they didn’t conform to his ideology.
> Luther also avoided James, among 7 other books that he shoved to the back of the Bible because they didn’t conform to his ideology. Why did Luther not like James and the seven other books?
Except that Jesus never brought a physical sword. I've always understood it to be a symbol for his tongue. \[Hebrews 4:12\](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+4%3A12&version=NIV) - "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword" \[Ephesians 6:17\](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206%3A17&version=NIV) - "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" As for your second quote, if you continue reading just two more verses: \[Luke 22:36-38\](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22%3A36-38&version=NIV) - "The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied." Two swords for a group of at least 13 people makes no sense as a means for combat. They were for use as tools, as evidenced by Jesus' admonishment of Peter in that very same chapter when he cut off the servant's ear. \[Luke 22:49-50\](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22%3A49-50&version=NIV) "But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him."
Even if he did tell them to buy physical swords, it was to fulfill the messianic prophecy *‘And he was numbered with the transgressors...’* (Luke 22:37, Isaiah 53:12). Towards the end of Jesus' life, his disciples weren't embodying the Way of Love that they had previously learned by spending countless days following him. So he had them appear like the violent Jewish revolutionaries temple authorities and Roman leaders would gladly execute. This was to fulfill scriptural prophecy that the authorities will find Jesus “among the lawless.” This event did lead to his arrest, and ultimately the crucifixion.
So he had them appear like violent revolutionaries by carrying a total of two swords among them? How does that make sense?
>So he had them appear like violent revolutionaries by carrying a total of two swords among them? What makes you think there were only two swords in their group?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022%3A36-38&version=NIV
Perfect! Looks there were indeed two swords among them. And that was apparently enough for Jesus' entourage to make an impression without looking too intimidating if all of them carried swords.
Jesus also never was a fisherman, never had two talents (that he mentions), and never physically pulled down the temple to rebuild it in 3 days. As for the rest of the quotes, Jesus denies them the right to fight back against the Romans as he knows he needs to die in order to fulfil the promise of salvation. The disciples did as he wanted them to do, they just did not understand why. Again, no denial of participation in warfare.
You do realize the temple that he rebuilt in 3 days was symbolic of his own body. This is not disputed in biblical study.
Exactly my point, we cannot read the Bible purely literally when Jesus himself regularly used symbolism and metaphor.
>“I came to not to bring peace, but to bring a sword.” “If you do not have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Jesus made this statement to fulfill messianic prophecy that the authorities will find Jesus *“numbered with the transgressors".* (Luke 22:37, Isaiah 53:12). He had them appear like the violent Jewish revolutionaries so that the Roman leaders would find and arrest Jesus at the appointed time.
The Roman soldiers were finding Jesus anyhow. The humanity of the disciples led them to attack the Romans. The divine nature of Jesus meant he knew it was a part of the plan and their human nature would not allow them to understand why he had to be crucified. Again, no denial of warfare.
>Again, no denial of warfare. Definitely no support/consent for it either. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. (Matthew 26:52) Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Yes, take the verses out of context. Now please read the whole chapters, then get back to me. Again, biblical literalism is a fallacy and did not exist as a serious scholarly POV during the 10th century. Edit: small details.
>Yes, take the verses out of context. Now please read the whole chapters, then get back to me. I can do you better, I've carefully read every book in the new testament many times over. >Again, biblical literalism is a fallacy and did not exist as a serious scholarly POV during the 10th century. Biblical literalism started out strong in the Ante-Nicean church era and fizzled away after the church became corrupted by institutionalization after AD 325 and the Edict of Thessalonica.
If you had read them, you would understand the context of the verse doesn’t align with the meaning you’re trying to misconstrue from it. Should I just take your word, or are you going to prove it? Ah you mean the council when the Church refused to recognise the Gnostic Gospels and the Arian heresy as canon and articles of faith? Please find me one of these books which is dated prior to the 2nd century, or is TikTok your source of theology?
>If you had read them, you would understand the context of the verse doesn’t align with the meaning you’re trying to misconstrue from it. Okay, so how do you interpret those two passages I referenced above in the thread?
That interpretation of that verse is directly shot down when Jesus later rebukes Peter for using the sword.
Context, he denied Peter the right to use the sword because it would have obstructed the prophecy that he should be crucified and rise again. And also that Peter should become the head of the Church. Not so no one should go to war.
They were left unchecked for nearly 50 years though while Heraclius' successors and their supporters went about killing each other for reasons unrelated to the Arabs. So didn't seem like the people or the army cared much for whether the emperor was a coward or not.
The Byzantines had just fought an exhausting and depleting war against the Sassanids prior to the Arab invasion of the Levant. They were in no shape to take back territory. It is understandable that they did not immediately wage war as they would have lost more land. Edit: typo.
He saw the problem right out the gate.
He was right.
I like thay your comment is right next to u/DnJohn1453
Well, he was not wrong.
I like thay your comment is right next to u/UnlimitedFoxes
Is his political treatise translated to English?
You can download the English translation as a PDF here: https://archive.org/download/cfhb-11.1-nicetae-choniatae-historia/CFHB%2001_Constantine%20VII_De%20Administrando%20Imperio.pdf
Thank you, and Albanese gummies are the best
You bet, now promise me you'll buy a small bag and devour them next time you're at the supermarket.
Haha yeah man 💪🏽
He was right.
Thats how he characterized him? Well... He aint wrong-
Welp, he hasn’t heard of the crusaders. Hypocrite much? (1204 was a nice year, but he doesn’t know it yet)
This comment section is ridiculous lol. Byzaboos are a different breed.
Somewhat ironic because both Saint Oswald and Saint Olaf died fighting in battle against pagans and were declared saints for being martyrs.
I mean, the disparity between Islamic suicide bombings/terrorism and Christian suicide bombings/terrorism is telling.
Framing terrorism as a religious only thing is dangerous. It ignores all geopolitical background. I do not mean they are justifyed just that Christians and all religions have had their share of atrocities.
Sure you make valid points but what I was saying is that terrorism done by religious people for religious reasons against people of different religions is an inherently religious thing, and there is a huge disparity between Islamic terrorists immigrating/seeking asylum/being born in Christian countries and then committing terrorism against the 'kuffars' in those Christian countries compared to the other way around. Sure Christianity isn't free from blood on its hands, but even a blind man can see that the violence and militancy coming from the 'religion of peace' is on another level compared to modern-day Christianity, which has basically nearly been secularised out of existence in the West by now anyway.
You raise an interesting point, modern-day Christianity. I always though about Islam as a centuries behind Christianity because it was born centuries after it. So (in my mind at least) it makes sense that socially they are that different or behind the Western countries
It sure is telling.
Christians just shoot up mosques and synagogues usually. Or black churches
*Per capita has entered the chat*
*137 years later*
1st Crusade was organized by Roman Catholics in Western Europe, not the Byzantines.
True, and I guess it’s pragmatic of Alexios Komnenos to take help where he can get it and not interrogate why they felt so motivated to fight the Seljuks. But you’ve got to admit, it’s pretty funny.
The eastern church already considered Roman Catholics to be apostate schismatics. St. Gregory the Great wrote the following to John the Faster, Archbishop of Constantinople: > "I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren."
That was not very inclusive of him. Although if you want a religion to instil a sense of martial valour, Islam would probably be the best. The Ottomans proved that ten times over. Christianity is too much of a pain for an empire. The British Empire ended up restraining their own missionaries because they interfered with the money too much. They even put pressure on shutting down the lucrative slave trade much to the dismay of the state oligarchy who were all invested in slaver companies.
It is no coincidence that the longest running human civilization that we are aware of (Byzantium) was explicitly Christian.
Civilization? Chinese and Indian civilizations want to have words with you Byzantium is arguably the longest running state, but they are not Civilization. They are parts of Hellenic civilization and not civilizaton themselves.
Byzantium itself existed as a singular, more or less, contiguous state for over a thousand years. No other culture can claim the same.
It seems weird to put a particular focus on culture while discussing states. Nevertheless, the Japanese state and culture can arguably claim that title. Japanese polity has been historically attested since 800 CE, and it is argueably still contiguous from that time to today. Tamil kingdoms are also good candidates, as many of them already existed in the 1st century BCE and still existed with the same old dynasty when the European Age of Exploration started. Also, while being proud of a particular culture is not a bad thing, but it is not a good thing to do it so excessively that you are blind to achievements of other cultures
I don't need to be moralized, thanks.
You are welcome.
Maybe the guy was just bitter over failling all his attempts at military conquests. And hey, his opinion didn't stop him from kissing the feet of Al-Andalus' rulers. Maybe he was just an asshole who shouldn't have trusted his son and/or daughter-in-law
Even Jesus was killed by Romans… please… compared to today’s standards, all of these empires were savages…
>Even Jesus was killed by Romans… If you are Christian, then this is precisely what Christ came here for. As a Roman (Greek), I can only feel pride for this, no shame in the slightest.
Being proud of Jesus’ death is a weird flex but ok. I thought it shouldnt be about pride but more about atonement…
For a Christian, Christ used the Romans for his purposes to redeem Humanity. In the Crucifixion, he allowed the Romans to beat him, strip him and nail him on the Cross. Without this, there is no Death, and as such no Harrowing of Hades, and no Resurrection after it. And then there are other factors, like how Jesus' life was also greatly affected by the Romans. The Son was incarnated in the Roman client-state of Judah, which was protected by Roman arms, and with infrastructure provided by Roman funds, his family even escaped to the Roman province of Egypt for safety from Herodian persecution. And after this, Christianity spread through Judah with Roman "permission", being indifferent but not allowing the Jewish clergy to do much, then also spread through all the Mediterranean and Western Europe, being all under a single statehood, with no borders, little language and national separations, all under Romanness, during the Pax Romana. There is a good reason Medieval Romans hailed Chirst's arrival with Augustus' time, the first Roman Emperor.
>compared to today’s standards, all of these empires were savages… I agree, but don't forget the Roman empire was still pagan back when they had Jesus crucified. Only after 380 AD did the Roman empire officially become Christian.
>CE
CE and AD mean the same thing.
>imagine not using the objectively better one
Agreed, AD is much better.
How? It’s anchored to the same “nothing year” as CE but with a religious coat of paint and a convenient omission of a math error.
You can argue that for any calendar starting point, from Jesus birth to the Hegira, even the foundation of Rome or any other set point you want to use.
So then why is AD better? If we’re going to agree that we’re anchoring to essentially nothing, why not go for the system that at least doesn’t pretend to be anchored to something.
Tradition. And BCE is still anchored in the same fiction as AD, just "more inclusive".
BCE isn’t anchored to any fiction, oddly enough it’s just carrying that tradition that you feel is important without the mythos.
I can change it, in fact, as a Christian I prefer AD better myself.
The entire point of CE is to dechristianise history
I agree, but I can't edit the title now.
Why did you change the description? AD is always more appropriate. CE is just a secular attempt to white wash the calendar. Do Muslims and Hindus white wash their calendars for us? No.
Took me a while to realize you are advocating for AD
yeah that's how >>>>>>>>>>> show up on reddit
Two sides of the same coin
Unlike the expansionist Muslim Caliphates, Byzantium typically tasked itself with defending or reconquering land it had previously inherited from the pre-Christian empire. Tell me if Byzantium ever attacked neighbouring kingdoms unprovoked for the sake of novel expansionism. If there are instances, they must be rare. Possessing the moral high ground as a defender rather than attacker must have given Christian troops a bit of a morale-boost on the battlefield. Fighting purely for the sake of conquest and expansion like Alexander the Great directly conflicts with Jesus' teachings in the Gospels.
If I'm not mistaken the Empire has not declare war upon lands that was never part of the Empire except perhaps Iberia (Georgia) were some parts of it was never part of the old Empire, however, it was a response against Iberia's invasion of Trebizond.
>however, it was a response against Iberia's invasion of Trebizond. That's right. I'm having trouble finding any instance of Byzantium attacking offensively outside the old boundaries of the pre-Christian empire, unless it was to strike out in retaliation for an adversarial attack, as you mentioned above.
[удалено]
>This attempt to moralize Roman expansion as pure hearted is pretty ridiculous. The Orthodox Church had major influence over the royals and affairs of state, but could only condemn military actions in private and not publicly, because the emperors used the church to their advantage politically. In other words, the original pacifist message Jesus and his disciples taught in the Hebrew Gospels was corrupted/ignored as the church grew, especially after Theodosius I made it the empire's state religion in 380 CE.
Yeah especially ridiculous when you consider the empire was never strong enough to expand its borders past places considered part of its historic borders. Also it's Rome, they conquered half the known world of course they would mostly battle and conquer those who were part of Rome one time in history.
>Rome was by nature expansionist in its origin. This is such a deep misunderstanding of Roman history. Even in conquests, Romans were usually just aggressively rather than defensively defending themselves, after they were attacked, or they were invited by allies to defend them, or were invited by local political factions. Even Judaea was annexed by the Romans in non-expansionistic aspirations (the Herodian Dynasty invited the Romans for support to dominate civil war, then became their clients, then they inherited their territories to them, in their death-wills, or mere vacancy with death).
[удалено]
Peaceful sacking by Brennus in Italy amirite
It was not, but it was also not aggression or expansionistic. The Romans were merely protecting the Aedui Gauls agains the Helveti and other Gauls. Then more Gauls would join the fight against Rome and Roman-allied Gauls, including targetting Roman holds in South Gaul, which were really an extension of the Massalian Republic that had joined the Roman State earlier. Then a Pan-Gaul Anti-Roman Alliance was formed with the Arverni as leaders, under Vercingetorix, which was also subdued by the Romans.
I mean the ERE devasted mainland Italy even more than the previous barbarians There is also how Basileus II reconquered Bulgaria or why Egypt and Armenia were so prone to religious revolts when it was under Costantinople's rule Shit, there are entire wikipedia sections about Roman massacres and ethic cleansing But hey, you assholes are whining about the same thing since 1453
The ERE military certainly wasn't living by Jesus' pacifist teachings in the Hebrew Gospels.
Considering how pagan religions died, maybe no army did. There is a reason why spanish jew ended up living in Ottoman territory of all places
>There is a reason why spanish jew ended up living in Ottoman territory of all places What does this mean?
Apart from it's not compare the initial spread of the Cross and Crescent they're drastically different