Christianity is the AntiChrist Religion, page 1

There's already a recent thread about this:

AntiChrist Religion

You might want to post your thoughts there.



[edit on 19/11/2005 by AkashicWanderer]

In this discussion, the premise of which is to question the legitimacy of Christ within the Christian religion, let us first make the determination that, in no way, may we stray from the subject at hand...Christ Himself.

To stem the tides of emotion which are bound to wash over such a contentious issue, we should be restrained from accusations, of a personal nature, towards anyone involved in this discussion. The use of the word 'you' should not enter into any portion of this debate, regardless which 'side' it reflects.

As my opening involvement I would present the New Testament Alterations

It is certain that the New Testament was not written by Christ himself, nor by his apostles, but a long time after them, by unknown persons, who, lest they should not be credited when they wrote of the affairs they were little acquainted with...

"Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since--as it already has been often proved--these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] hisb apostles, but a long while after their assumptions, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them"
St Faustus, Fifth- Century French Bishop

I believe this statement sums up the issue. The seed from which this debate of conspiracy has grown was not from the mixed up, modern world with its 'instant religion', but rather has set down its roots in the earliest days of Christianity. Not only do we need to establish that there was a 'coverup' and a measure of 'disinformation', which are the prerequisites of conspiracy, but we also have to find out what the Christ actually did 'stand for' in his ministry and what happened to his followers in the time preceding and after the fall of Jerusalem in 68 AD.

I propose;

1.) The denial of the historical Jesus should not be a part of this debate, for if Christ never lived, as some would contend, the argument for would become a moot point.

2.) Any mention of the Mythical Christ as shown in the various traditions, where the Christ is spiritually manifested through ritual traditions (ie Nazarite), would be allowable as a historical Christ.

.

Originally posted by Zaimless
When thinking this through and reading the old testament about God I discovered that the God in the Christian religion did the following and it is in every Christians bible, if they read it.
1. That God is a flame and fire
2. That God encouraged incest
3. That God encourages cannabalism
4. That God had peoples hand, feet and heads cut off
5. That God had tens of thousands killed cause they could not spead a word properly when talking.
6. That Sampson went around killing people and tearing them apart and it was all good with God (and this is after the ' thou shall not's ')
7. That God is a war monger
8. That he himself has said he is vengeful, fearful, cruel, and more...
9. That this list could go on and on.....
10. In the old testament God killed over 10 million people

....that God is no less than a great big chicken

Psalms 91:3-4 Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust.

Hee hee! Wasn't that fun?

All right now how about actually having a discussion, and an argument with references and detail explanation instead of the usual ranting that occurs when someone discusses the Bible. Whatever happened to insight and the thoughtful process called thinking that happens when you engage your brain first?

Originally posted by Zaimless
That the KJV Bible is only, what 400 some years old. That protestants changed the bible and yet they preach to not change the bible. In fact most of them don't even know the word 'bible' mean 'book' and so much more. Lots to study here.

The Dead Sea Scrolls which were found near the Dead Sea around 1947 date back to the second century B.C. and contain text from every book of the Hebrew Bible except for the book of Ester. Some books, such as Isaiah were found in their entirety. It's going to be hard to prove that the Protestant movement was behind this scripture since they didn't come along until over 1,300 years after the newest dated scroll.

In fact the Dead Sea Scrolls show us that the Bible that we have today (New Testament Excluded) has no notable difference from the one that was read 2,000 years ago. You're going to have to steer your witch-hunt towards a group that dates back to before the 2nd centruy BC if you want to continue on this road.


Dead Sea Scrolls Overview
Radiocarbon Age Dates for Dead Sea Scrolls

For a comparison of books in the bible, from a rather biased, distorted, and wrong, perception:
www.bible.ca...


And of course if we're talking about the DSS, then there are also other books contained in it that aren't in the bible (tho this obviously isn't particularly important in some respects)
www.gnosis.org...

But the big question is how much of modern christianity is based on these writtings, and how different would it be if other writtings were included.

I don't see how there can be a resolution to this, however, if you posit that there was some other message in christianity, and then men changed it by making fake gospels, perhaps to replace other real gospels, and there are 'rejected' works that claim to be gospels and are quite different from the accepted ones, then there'd be something.

But again, how can you possibly demonstrate this, and how can you possibly say that the god worshipped by christians isn't christ? Its like how people will insist that muslims are actually worshiping baal or the moon god rather than the god of the old testament. If they claim it and if they beleive it, how could anythign else be true?


With christianity tho it is perhaps a bit different, because we are talking about the anti-christ, and that its sufficient that he merely fool people.



So modern christianity could be the anti-christ religion in so far as, perhaps, the original christianity was something totally different, ie more like gnostic christianity, and the deception and false prophet warned about in Revelation is this idea of christianity being the competing version that it is today.

Of course, this requires that John at Patmos is a gnostic christian, when there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that he was.

And of course, this is all just speculation. We could just as easily say that the gnostic version of christianity is the anti-christ religion.



And on the other hand, it would look like the best way for the anti-christ to get christians to turn away from god is to present himself as such, ie, when to all outward appearances we're witnessing the second comming of jesus, its actually the anti-christ in disguise, and there'd really be no way to tell the difference.

The Truth About the Garden of Eden Story
  Posted 5 days ago with 49 member flags

We Have Been Lied To
  Posted 16 days ago with 36 member flags

The Mormon Church is a Cult
  Posted 8 days ago with 23 member flags

Exposing the tragic fabrication of a saviour of the world
  Posted 18 days ago with 19 member flags

Who killed the prophet Muhammad? A 1400 year old murder mystery.
  Posted 13 days ago with 16 member flags

Is The Bible Real?
  Posted 16 days ago with 9 member flags

The talk too controversial for TED to post...
  Posted 9 days ago with 9 member flags

The game, laid bare (illuminati)
  Posted 4 days ago with 8 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: