[sjkted]

I'm going to come to a conclusion that I haven't heard elsewhere.

The notion of "good" Christians vs. "bad" Christians do not resonate with me. I see a very substantial number of people who go to church regularly and have not made an honest attempt to understand the bible or their "religion". To me, these are sheeple -- I wouldn't even call them Christians. I would call them the brainwashed masses.

I would define Christians as people who practice Christ's ways of love and light. This would include most spiritual seekers and lightworkers, even though the word Christian is so heavily tarnished.

Of course, this is not the definition given to the profane, but it appears that in the past there were enlightened Christians who were intellectuals and spiritually connected before religiously devout. Those groups appear to have been subverted and corrupted into the main bodies of religion we have at present.

I'm convinced that there was an occult purpose for the Inquisition and the Crusades. At least part of the purpose was to destroy these higher consciousness groups. Martin Luther had it partly right in how he identified the main problems of the church, although the "solutions" and the splinter groups turned out to be little better.

At present, I'm not sure there are any direct descending lineage for any of these original groups. It's nearly impossible to be 100% sure on any of this because so much of the information is destroyed or distorted, but there is secondary corroborating evidence as presented in the original video.

What I see is the primary issue here is the old divide and conquer trick. With all of the real problems we have in the world, why even bother debating the existence of some guy who may have been alive 2000 years ago? To debate this within the truth movement is just a reason to marginalize and discredit ourselves and also to cause people who call themselves Christians to turn away from the "truth movement".

--sjkted