Take the Zeitgeist Challenge

reply to post by justamomma


Absolutely they encourage thinking. Now you said the most horrible leaders claimed Christianity but that was not true... the top two mass murderers were were atheists then Hitler ... then there is Pol Pot in Cambodia an atheist who killed at least 2 million. In Atheist North Korea it is still going on today.

So communism which is always anti religion is the biggest system of control and evil. Just a little research will prove that out.

In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987. Of course, the world total itself it shocking. It is several times the 38,000,000 battle-dead that have been killed in all this century's international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of murders by the Soviet Union alone--one communist country-- well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of communist China almost equal it.
www.hawaii.edu...

Will you address my point though about the bible possibly being used to push the magical rescue which would keep ppl waiting and not speaking out against the one world gov't? That is what I am more interested in. (Hitler did claim christianity btw. Was he? no. But he claimed it)

My main point is though that since the bible is the first claim of the NWO and during the time of it being put together it was kept out of the hands of the public, and now speaks of a magical rescue, could it not be possible that it is being used to keep a good majority of the ppl subdued believing jesus will return again?

See, the man jesus was teaching personal enlightenment. The higher ups had to control that message and maybe they did it in the most clever way possible..... by feeding a santa claus version of jesus to the public.

For the record, communism isn't the only controlling government system out there. Social democracy is controlling as well

Originally posted by Lightmare
reply to post by AshleyD

 

Yep. I've been saying it for a while now. And I'm gonna keep on saying it until people get the meaning. To believe Zeitgeist is to embrace ignorance rather than deny it.

What shocks me is how many people seem to really WANT to believe in what Zeitgeist says. It just goes to show that most people don't really want the truth. Their ears are itching for "teachers" who will tell them what they want to hear, regardless of whether it is true or not. They would rather believe a lie that caters to their own prejudices and misconceptions. Unbelievable.

It's more simplistic that that. They want to believe there is no God, they don't like the idea that a God created them. They don't want to follow a loving heavenly Father's instructions. They want to live life however they see fit. You see, in order to excuse the 10 Commandments one must first deny God. Then the 10 Commandments do not apply by default.

Man wants to commit adultry.
Man wants to covet.
man wants to lie when it suits his purposes.
Man wants to hate someone when they wrong them.
Man wants to have a foul mouth.
Man wants to commit fornications.
man wants to divorce whenever he tires of his wife.

Man must eliminate God so that his God-given conscience can be ignored.

reply to post by justamomma


There are apostate Churches and false prophets that may mislead people in that way.

Christians are told to fight and speak out against evil. For example refuting lies like Zeitgeist.

Paul said: "For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), proving what is acceptable to the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret" (Eph. 5:8-12).

"expose them"


Also the Bible tells us to resist the NWO to the point of death. No one that takes the mark of the beast will enter the kingdom of heaven.



[edit on 8/10/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by justamomma

Hmmm... Have been thinking about this whole "the bible was the first to call out the NWO." A thought hit me that many corrupt leaders such as hitler, alot of modern day presidents, etc have claimed Christianity.

So what? Let me show you how silly a "claim" is:

I'm a millionaire. I truly am.

*Goes to check bank account*

Guess I'm not a millionaire.

The Bible says many will claim to be Christians but are actually ravening wolves in sheeps clothing. That is why it is said that you can tell if a person is truly a believer by his "fruit", I.E. does his actions match his words.

History clearly shows that Hitler wasn't a Christian. It doesn't matter what he claimed to be true, actions speak louder than words.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Originally posted by gnosis111
reply to post by re22666

 

Yeah and don't forget to add that Mark, Matt, Luke, and John were written 300 years AFTER the supposed crucifixion. So either these guys lived longer than we can imagine, OR, someone else wrote them.

Oooops more zeitgeist level scholarship...


This is even from an ATHEIST website :

ecause of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE.
atheism.about.com...

deny ignorance

I already debunked that absurd tripe a few pages ago.

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

(and considering that it was those in the power that kept access to the books of the bible from the commoners).

Why do people STILL confuse Catholicism with Christianity????

They are NOT the same, never have been. They "claim" to be Christian but are clearly not when one looks at their practices compared with the Word of God.

Everytime one of you compares fundamental Christianity with Catholicism it furthers the sterotype that they are the same. They ARE NOT.

Catholicism is the Christian version of the Pharisees.

reply to post by Bigwhammy



Fair enough.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Dude, you really should calm down. I was asking what the "christians" thought about it was all. For a group of ppl that is supposed to have the love of god, some of you sure get worked up easily.

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Dude, you really should calm down. I was asking what the "christians" thought about it was all. For a group of ppl that is supposed to have the love of god, some of you sure get worked up easily.

I'm not angry. More like "mystified" at the ignorance of so many. Catholicism isn't Christianity.

Never has been.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Mark and Luke were Jesus's disciples also. You weren't aware of this? That's odd, but if you claim you didn't know how can I argue with that?

Please elaborate? The author of Mark is anonymous and is usually attributed to John Mark who never knew Jesus and was a traveling companion of Paul and Barnabas. Luke as you say was Paul's physician and therefore never met Jesus which the author of Luke themselves state. And it is likely that the author of Luke was NOT Luke

Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus:

"Then he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads". Acts 9:4-5

I suppose you are technically correct, he never SAW Jesus, because he was blinded, but he was standing within 10 feet of Him at the time.

Did his companions hear the voice but not see the light Acts 9:7 or see the light and not hear the voice Acts 22:9. Plus these accounts are from Luke (who wasn't Luke) while Paul's account is pretty lacking in any light or voices.

Matthew was a tax collector, Luke was a physician, Peter was a lawyer, and Paul was a Roman citizen and a very bright Pharisee.

They could read. Not to mention they had all 5 books of the Torah memorized.

I assume they could read and write.

I thought Peter was a fisherman along with his brother Andrew.

Whether they could read or write is immaterial as it is generally thought the the authors of the gospels were not the people that they are pertained to. This is due to inconsistencies within their stories.

G

I will defer to Richard Dawkins as to why all religion is just lies.

en.wikipedia.org...

His various anti-religion pieces are proof enough to me.

Ppl using derivatives of the dead sea scroll as their basis
of fact need to go back and rethink the crusades and
the inquisition as being best for mankind.

Maybe some more witch burning will set things straight ?

Ah she cast a spell on me, pass the BBQ sauce ! Ribs for all !

We can all rush to rome and prepay our sins for a stairway
to heaven.

Gimme a break.

As George Carlin said religion is the biggest bull$hit story of all time.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Dude, you really should calm down. I was asking what the "christians" thought about it was all. For a group of ppl that is supposed to have the love of god, some of you sure get worked up easily.

I'm not angry. More like "mystified" at the ignorance of so many. Catholicism isn't Christianity.

Never has been.

Uhm, okay...... correct my ignorance oh mighty christian.. don't catholics call themselves christian? and don't christians and catholics use the same bible, thus the same bible was kept in the hands of the higher "ups" before being putting out into the public's hands? I am failing to see how your arguement is relevant.

NO the Catholic Church is not Christian

They are part of the coming NWO one world religion -- they have already started this process with the ecumenical movement.

[edit on 10-8-2008 by Yosimitie Sam]

No we don't use the same bible as Catholics. they have additional apocryphal books.

They pray to dead people -- necromancy is forbidden

They worship Mary as a life long virgin - the bible lists Jesus brothers and sisters - who came from Mary and Joesph after Jesus -- but they even pray to her - which is not Biblical

They believe the Pope speaks directly for God. His writing is equal to scripture.

They believe you earn your salvation - not true - it is through grace alone.

These are but a few... now I personally think many Catholic people are misled Christians but the Catholic church is what we call apostate.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


thanks for the clarification. so, how are you sure which christian way is the right way? Catholicism aside, there are many different ways of worship for christians?

I thought if there was any sect that was close to the real deal for being pure christianity it would be the amish. I like their way too..... not the worship or the clothes, but the lifestyle.

anyway, kind of off topic I know, but just wondering if one of you woudn't mind answering for me.


[edit on 10-8-2008 by justamomma]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Hmmm, i would like you to prove that Joseph and Mary had children after Jesus. NOWHERE in the bible does it say this.

Originally posted by gnosis111
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

Hmmm, i would like you to prove that Joseph and Mary had children after Jesus. NOWHERE in the bible does it say this.

Ohhhhh really ? " NOWHERE" huh?

Mathew 1:25: And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her
firstborn son: and he called His name JESUS.

Mathew 12:46-47: While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Mathew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Mark 3:31-32: There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

Mark 6:3: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James,
and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?
And they were offended at him.

deny ignorance

reply to post by justamomma


As long as you hold to salvation in Christ alone by grace through faith - I think you are covered whether your off base on many other issues. That's why I think many catholics (the poeple) are Christians but their system of religion is corrupt.

If you study the actual Bible and not "religion" you are on the right track. I am a Baptist because they take the Bible seriously.

reply to post by Lightmare

I'm not here to socialize and play nicey nice with people. I'm here to do battle with people who tout shoddy research and "what if" scenarios as facts.

So I take it that you have not done the research? The research I have already listed is by a Bible scholar who had been an evangelical Christian like you folks. He reads and understands ancient Greek, Hebrew and Latin. What about that don't you understand?

Are you telling me that you are an authority on the ancient writings of the Bible? Are you a scholar? What qualifies you to tout this authority?

Can you tell me how Erasmus fit into this Biblical canonized theme? Where did he fit into the scheme to supply the Catholic church with the trinity doctrine even though it was not in the earliest copies of the NT (now provable)?

Where did the scribes obtain their copies that they translated from? How many copies do you believe there were? And in how many languages? How many lands? And were they identical or were there countless discrepancies between them all? And how did this affect future translations or versions of the NT, such as the Latin Vulgate and KJV? How many errors existed between all the countless copies that are now being discovered?

How did the Greeks record their writing or translating in documents? And why would this be a very difficult thing for amateur copiers to be able to transcribe? At what point did actual "professional" scribes get involved with the copies that they were given, and where did these copies come from? Who were the original ones who copied the copies and their relation to the first church and how long after the death of Christ did they start copying?

Let's hear your expertise!!

Contempt prior to investigation will only make you look foolish.