There was a lot of hysteria around that part of history. Just because they were accused and even convicted of being a witch back then doesn't mean that they actually were. One of the proofs of witchcraft back then was use of herbs.
I think it was the other way around. The ones who sank were innocent. But they were just as dead.
You need to review that part of history.
Love based.
We might call the results "miracles."
I'm guessing if I looked hard enough, I could find a victim of this hysteria in my lines, too.
1600s version of this.
There are such things. But the witch trials accused many innocent people.
I have ancestors from that area. Could be me, too, for all I know.
Those events probably have a lot to do with the creation of the 6th Amendment.
Can't rule out that there were satanists back then, too. But far and away, most of the accused probably weren't that.
Yeah, probably the only thing differentiating them is intent. People who do as Jesus did could well be accused of witchcraft by some. Think about it.
No, I don't agree with that. It depends on how they come to it. Some of New Age is the restoration of miracle working as Jesus did.
>Just because one is sensitive to what is not seen doesn't make them a 'witch'.
They would have accused Jesus himself, if this was the standard.
There's a video out there of her describing satanic acts she had witnessed and participated in.
Agreed. He did it because he loved the people. That's the difference.
But consider: If you had been born in Israel at the time of Jesus Christ, and you had the knowledge typical of the time, would you have accepted Jesus then? Take your time with this. It's an important question. Think about your own birth and education and how it has shaped you.
I'm sure many people thought it was the right thing to do to crucify him. Jesus was basically a New Ager, as far as the people in Israel were concerned. He didn't fit their definition of Godliness.
Who says I reject him? Far from it. The question I proposed is one I have meditated on for many many years.
Yes, I agree, they're real. But I get tired of watching people here jump to conclusions about things. These ones are the modern-day equivalent of Pharisees.
He was more likely a Buddhist/Hindu guru.
I have a theory that Judaism has its roots in Hinduism, actually. You're aware that Hebrew does not have vowels, right? Well, check this out:
A B R A H A M
B R H M
B R A H M A
And Abraham's wife's name was Sara, which could be a shortening of Sarasvati, who was Brahma's wife.
Hinduism is ancient, far preceding either, most likely.
The Bible was my beginning of learning of him, for sure. Even better when one comes to the point of learning from Him directly.
The Bible says Abraham came from the north.
That Brahma is called a god now may be a matter of definition. We call Jesus a god, and he was human.
How do we know Brahma didn't assume that name later, too?
Anyway, the point of this particular "slide" is that some Anons have been assuming that if something isn't Christian or doesn't fit their definition of such, then it is automatically evil and satanic. The Pharisees thought the same way. Those involved in the Salem witch trials did so, too. Be careful about jumping to those types of conclusions. Jesus was not a typical Israelite and was condemned because of it. Will you, too, condemn Godly people just because they don't fit your expectations? Be careful, lest you be counted among those who shouted, "Crucify him!" Jesus was a model of acceptance for the most part.
Are you saying that the act of creating a new human is "New Age Hocus Pocus"?
"The Kingdom of Heaven is within."
Yes, that seems right. The power got into the hands of those who don't follow the laws of love.