No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

[ghostmade]

Agent smith (dr.fever) u make me lol. Get real. Do you understand there is no morality with out GODs law as a reference?
There was a point in my life where i would implement the same hate filled tatics that you are employing. Seems you are just here to argue and belittle peoples beliefs
Im almost to the point of full bo9wn pitty. Your problems go way beyond that of atheism,well not totally (becuase your problems stems from that ideology).
Just a bad egg. Its funny your doing more for theologians than you know.

Look im not here to argue .u made up your mind. Your experience/existence = nothing. Go kill as many people as possible,then your self. (Since life is not sacred) its pointless.
Everlasting nothingness is your belief . therfore you are in a state of observing nothingness.

Now if thats find by you then im sorry to hear that
But for those who want to find out more from a intellectually sound standpoint of GOD
Ravi zacharias is your man. He is a power house everything from atheism, Stephan Hawkins, all those major nay sayers he explains its all from an intellectual sence
Ive been to a few seminars trully moving stuff

A coward dies a thousand death. I know people with blood and bone cancers who believe thatsbthere cross to to varry unto death.
They got more class on there dick than you have in your whole body dr.fever
Imbstarting to think you just want people to have hate in there heart towards you.maby you feed off of it? Wounder what kind of entity would enjoy that?

Seriously you are in service of a entity and dont even know it.blind you are,darkness you serve
Science is not an absolute no matter how hard they try and convince you of this.its an observation of what is. Or better yet whatbit is perceived to be.

Really look it up . scientists say they can prove that our existence is a computer generated simulation. That why the bible teachs this life is not real only temporary.nothing last forever hear unless by god (the programmer, architect,)
Google it no matter hiwnyou slice it. The universe has a intelligent design. From transpermia to the matrix. It all points to one thing...creation.

I would do all the leg work and post the articles hear but i dontbhave time for that.i do my works in person,just like my dating.lol

 

[ghostmade]

Professor james gates is the man who found the computer code in super string theory

Whats funny is peipleblikebthis and countless other scientists are pretty much sayong thebsame thing. Evrythingnis a product of intelligent design .

 

[ghostmade]

Oh and thank you mr.bunch that shit brought me a good laugh. That it in itself was priceless

 

[RetroGrow]

Whats funny is peipleblikebthis and countless other scientists are pretty much sayong thebsame thing. Evrythingnis a product of intelligent design .

I would agree with that if I was a moron.

 

[RetroGrow]

there was a study done in europe about people who pray during trying sitiuations and they found there was a definite change in the brain that led those praying to not feel pain as much.i believe they placed certain religious images in front of test subjects and electrocuted them and watched results

That's really stupid, even for you.
Who were these subjects who volunteered to be "electrocuted"?
I think you should try it.
You won't feel any pain once you're electrocuted, 'cause you'll be dead, prayer or not.

 

[HempKat]

. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef. In the words of Bart Ehrman: “What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.” (pp. 56-57)

2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts.Paul seems unaware of any virgin birth, for example. No wise men, no star in the east, no miracles. Historians have long puzzled over the “Silence of Paul” on the most basic biographical facts and teachings of Jesus. Paul fails to cite Jesus’ authority precisely when it would make his case. What’s more, he never calls the twelve apostles Jesus’ disciples; in fact, he never says Jesus HAD disciples –or a ministry, or did miracles, or gave teachings. He virtually refuses to disclose any other biographical detail, and the few cryptic hints he offers aren’t just vague, but contradict the gospels. The leaders of the early Christian movement in Jerusalem like Peter and James are supposedly Jesus’ own followers and family; but Paul dismisses them as nobodies and repeatedly opposes them for not being true Christians!

Liberal theologian Marcus Borg suggests that people read the books of the New Testament in chronological order to see how early Christianity unfolded. “Placing the Gospels after Paul makes it clear that as written documents they are not the source of early Christianity but its product. The Gospel — the good news — of and about Jesus existed before the Gospels. They are the products of early Christian communities several decades after Jesus’ historical life and tell us how those communities saw his significance in their historical context.”

3. Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts. We now know that the four gospels were assigned the names of the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not written by them. To make matter sketchier, the name designations happened sometime in second century, around 100 years or more after Christianity supposedly began. For a variety of reasons, the practice of pseudonymous writing was common at the time and many contemporary documents are “signed” by famous figures. The same is true of the New Testament epistles except for a handful of letters from Paul (6 out of 13) which are broadly thought to be genuine. But even the gospel stories don’t actually say, “I was there.” Rather, they claim the existence of other witnesses, a phenomenon familiar to anyone who has heard the phrase, my aunt knew someone who . . . .

4. The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.If you think you know the Jesus story pretty well, I suggest that you pause at this point to test yourself with the 20 question quiz at ExChristian.net.

The gospel of Mark is thought to be the earliest existing “life of Jesus,” and linguistic analysis suggests that Luke and Matthew both simply reworked Mark and added their own corrections and new material. But they contradict each other and, to an even greater degree contradict the much later gospel of John, because they were written with different objectives for different audiences. The incompatible Easter stories offer one example of how much the stories disagree.

5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons. They include a cynic philosopher, charismatic Hasid, liberal Pharisee, conservative rabbi, Zealot revolutionary, nonviolent pacifist to borrow from a much longer listassembled by Price. In his words (pp. 15-16), “The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time.” John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar grumbles that “the stunning diversity is an academic embarrassment.”

None of that is proof Jesus didn't exist though. I mean the fact that Jesus was never mentioned in any writings recovered from his era doesn't mean he didn't exist. I doubt my neighbors, the people of the town I live in, the people of the state I live in and the people of the country I live in, have ever written about me (with the exception of legal documents) and yet I exist. In other words a lack of evidence is not proof of anything other then a lack of evidence. Besides wars and natural disasters that might account for the lack of records one must also consider that in such times if the powers that were, didn't want a person to be known, it was not unusual to have all evidence of that person destroyed. According to biblical accountings at the time both Rome and the Jewish Elite were very worried about the influence that Jesus had and what it could mean if all the people who followed Jesus started taking some of Christ's teachings to heart. Therefore it would not be a major surprise if it were somehow discovered that either the Romans or the Jewish elite ordered all evidence Jesus ever existed to be destroyed.

 

[HempKat]

Like the saying goes belief is in the eye if the beholder,, if anyone thinks that there was a Jesus or there is a God better dam well have proof there is

When you look at the history of what we know about the world, you see a noticeable pattern. Natural explanations of things have been replacing supernatural explanations of them. Like a steamroller. Why the Sun rises and sets. Where thunder and lightning come from. Why people get sick. Why people look like their parents. How the complexity of life came into being. I could go on and on.

All these things were once explained by religion. But as we understood the world better, and learned to observe it more carefully, the explanations based on religion were replaced by ones based on physical cause and effect. Consistently. Thoroughly. Like a steamroller. The number of times that a supernatural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a natural explanation? Thousands upon thousands upon thousands.

Now. The number of times that a natural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a supernatural one? The number of times humankind has said, "We used to think (X) was caused by physical cause and effect, but now we understand that it's caused by God, or spirits, or demons, or the soul"?

Exactly zero.

Sure, people come up with new supernatural "explanations" for stuff all the time. But explanations with evidence? Replicable evidence? Carefully gathered, patiently tested, rigorously reviewed evidence? Internally consistent evidence? Large amounts of it, from many different sources? Again -- exactly zero.

Given that this is true, what are the chances that any given phenomenon for which we currently don't have a thorough explanation -- human consciousness, for instance, or the origin of the Universe -- will be best explained by the supernatural?

Given this pattern, it's clear that the chances of this are essentially zero. So close to zero that they might as well be zero. And the hypothesis of the supernatural is therefore a hypothesis we can discard. It is a hypothesis we came up with when we didn't understand the world as well as we do now... but that, on more careful examination, has never once been shown to be correct.

If I see any solid evidence to support God, or any supernatural explanation of any phenomenon, I'll reconsider my disbelief. Until then, I'll assume that the mind-bogglingly consistent pattern of natural explanations replacing supernatural ones is almost certain to continue.

(Oh -- for the sake of brevity, I'm generally going to say "God" in this chapter when I mean "God, or the soul, or metaphysical energy, or any sort of supernatural being or substance." I don't feel like getting into discussions about, "Well, I don't believe in an old man in the clouds with a white beard, but I believe..." It's not just the man in the white beard that I don't believe in. I don't believe in any sort of religion, any sort of soul or spirit or metaphysical guiding force, anything that isn't the physical world and its vast and astonishing manifestations.

I'm curious as to where this image of God as an old man with a white beard sitting in the clouds comes from. The only descriptions I've ever seen in the bible was a burning bush or a pillar of fire. Other references have him as just a voice from the heavens. I can not recall one single biblical accounting that describes him as an old man with a white beard sitting in the clouds.

 

[HempKat]

If God (or any other metaphysical being or beings) were real, and people were really perceiving him/ her/ it/ them, why do these perceptions differ so wildly?


When different people look at, say, a tree, we more or less agree about what we're looking at: what size it is, what shape, whether it currently has leaves or not and what color those leaves are, etc. We may have disagreements regarding the tree -- what other plants it's most closely related to, where it stands in the evolutionary scheme, should it be cut down to make way for a new sports stadium, etc. But unless one of us is hallucinating or deranged or literally unable to see, we can all agree on the tree's basic existence, and the basic facts about it.

This is blatantly not the case for God. Even among people who do believe in God, there is no agreement about what God is, what God does, what God wants from us, how he acts or doesn't act on the world, whether he's a he, whether there's one or more of him, whether he's a personal being or a diffuse metaphysical substance. And this is among smart, thoughtful people. What's more, many smart, thoughtful people don't even think God exists.

And if God existed, he'd be a whole lot bigger, a whole lot more powerful, with a whole lot more effect in the world, than a tree. Why is it that we can all see a tree in more or less the same way, but we don't see God in even remotely the same way?

The explanation, of course, is that God does not exist. We disagree so radically over what he is because we aren't perceiving anything that's real. We're "perceiving" something we made up; something we were taught to believe; something that the part of our brain that's wired to see pattern and intention, even when none exists, is inclined to see and believe.

There is another equally valid reason for why descriptions of God vary, it could also be because he has never revealed himself in one consistent form. Perhaps when God manifests the form taken is one designed to make it easier for the person God is manifesting for, to recognize as God. Perhaps the true form of God is so far beyond our comprehension that we wouldn't recognize it even if we did see it. Or perhaps we see it as something else and have become so used to thinking of it as something else that it never occurs to us that we are actually seeing God.

That last supposition works well on what I believe God to be. I like to think that God is the known universe and everything in it. Yet when I look at the earth I see a planet, when I look at the sun I see the sun, when I look at the stars I see the stars.

 

[HempKat]

Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.
We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways.
Will anything happen? No. Of course not.

This is very odd. Jesus makes specific promises in the Bible about how prayer is supposed to work. Jesus says in many different places that he and God will answer your prayers. And Christians believe Jesus -- according to this recent article, "54% of American adults believe the Bible is literally true." In some areas of the country the number goes as high as 75%.

If the Bible is literally true, then something is seriously amiss. Simply look at the facts. In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:

Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
If "every one who asks receives", then if we ask for cancer to be cured, it should be cured. Right? If "our Father who is in heaven gives good things to those who ask him", then if we ask him to cure cancer, he should cure it. Right? And yet nothing happens.
In Matthew 17:20 Jesus says:

For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
If "nothing will be impossible to you", then if we ask to cure cancer tonight, cancer should disappear. Right? Yet nothing happens. Note that if we take the Bible less-than-literally here, the statement "nothing will be impossible to you" becomes "lots of things will be impossible to you," and that would mean that Jesus is lying.
In Matthew 21:21:

I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.
If "you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer", then if we ask to cure cancer tonight, cancer should dissappear. Right? Yet nothing happens. Note again that there is not a non-literal way to interpret "you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer", unless you replace "whatever" with "nothing" or "little."
The message is reiterated Mark 11:24:

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
If God says, "believe that you have received it, and it will be yours," and if we believe in God and his power, then what should happen if we pray to cure cancer tonight? It should be cured. Either that, or God is lying.
In John chapter 14, verses 12 through 14, Jesus tells all of us just how easy prayer can be:

"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." [ref]
Look at how direct this statement is: "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." This is the "Son of God" speaking. Have we taken him "too literally?" No. This is a simple, unambiguous statement. Have we taken his statement "out of context?" No - Jesus uses the word anyone. Yet Jesus' statement is obviously false. Because when we ask God to cure cancer tonight, nothing happens.
We see the same thing over and over again...

In Matthew 18:19 Jesus says:

Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
In James 5:15-16 the Bible says:
And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
In Mark 9:23:
All things are possible to him who believes.
In Luke 1:37:
For with God nothing will be impossible.
Nothing could be simpler or clearer than Jesus' promises about prayer in the Bible. Yet, when we pray to eliminate cancer, nothing happens.
And keep in mind that this is Jesus talking here. These are not the words of human beings. These are not the words of "inspired" human beings. These are supposedly the words of God himself, incarnated in a human body. Jesus is supposed to be a perfect, sinless being. And yet, it is obvious that Jesus is lying. What Jesus says is clearly incorrect.

You seem to miss a key factor, in all those examples it clearly says if you have faith, if you believe. People that do have faith and do believe would not be trying to test God by asking for something like cancer to be cured. Yet that's what you are trying to do by picking cancer. You sat there and thought of all the possible arguments for why a prayer didn't work and then came up with something that could be seen as heartfelt, unselfish, non materialistic, etc.

Now what would you do if someone came up to you, showed you medical evidence they had cancer and said they prayed for the cancer to be cured and was able to show you the same type of medical evidence from a more recent testing after the prayer that shows the cancer is gone and you couldn't find any way to refute any of the medical evidence?

Another thing you apparently never consider is that maybe cancer exists because it is meant to. I mean if there is a God that has a "plan" for mankind then perhaps cancer is part of that plan and therefore can not be simply prayed away. Maybe it is meant to humble some, to teach others how to be more caring, to sever as a deterrent to unhealthy behaviors, to unite people together to fight a common cause, etc.

 

[bombadil.360]

None of that is proof Jesus didn't exist though. I mean the fact that Jesus was never mentioned in any writings recovered from his era doesn't mean he didn't exist. I doubt my neighbors, the people of the town I live in, the people of the state I live in and the people of the country I live in, have ever written about me and yet I exist. In other words a lack of evidence is not proof of anything other then a lack of evidence. Besides wars and natural disasters that might account for the lack of records one must also consider that in such times if the powers that were, didn't want a person to be known, it was not unusual to have all evidence of that person destroyed. According to biblical accountings at the time both Rome and the Jewish Elite were very worried about the influence that Jesus had and what it could mean if all the people who followed Jesus started taking some of Christ's teachings to heart. Therefore it would not be a major surprise if it were somehow discovered that either the Romans or the Jewish elite ordered all evidence Jesus ever existed to be destroyed.

wow dude, you make some wild claims here...

first, you fall back on old anti-semite arguments such as: "The Jews killed Jesus" etc...

second, you claim many people were erased from history by elites and that such a thing was not 'unusual'... can you substantiate your claim? if so, I wonder how, since according to you, they were historically erased by the elites lol...

fact is that no one can prove empirically anything that happened in human history a couple of thousands of years ago, not even way more trivial things than whether or not Jesus existed.

in Christianity, you have to believe without seeing, that's the basis of Christian assigned meaning to the word 'faith'. so even trying to prove whether Jesus existed or not is kinda weird for Christians.

ironically, this is opposed to the meaning of Faith in Hebrew (Emuna), Emuna (Faith) in Hebrew actually means Trustfulness, and Jews are actually Commanded to Know God, never to "believe". actually, You cannot have real Faith (trustfulness) in what you do not know.

I don't know why can't people let people believe in what they want though... let Dr. Fever believe as he wishes, and instead of trying to prove whether Jesus existed or not to him, afterall, didn't Jesus said something like: "you believe now because you have seen me, blessed are those who believe without seeing" so take JCs advice and feel blessed because you believe without seeing...and stop trying to convert people and stop with the antisemitism already too.

peace

 

[HempKat]

wow dude, you make some wild claims here...

first, you fall back on old anti-semite arguments such as: "The Jews killed Jesus" etc...

second, you claim many people were erased from history by elites and that such a thing was not 'unusual'... can you substantiate your claim? if so, I wonder how, since according to you, they were historically erased by the elites lol...

fact is that no one can prove empirically anything that happened in human history a couple of thousands of years ago, not even way more trivial things than whether or not Jesus existed.

in Christianity, you have to believe without seeing, that's the basis of Christian assigned meaning to the word 'faith'. so even trying to prove whether Jesus existed or not is kinda weird for Christians.

ironically, this is opposed to the meaning of Faith in Hebrew (Emuna), Emuna (Faith) in Hebrew actually means Trustfulness, and Jews are actually Commanded to Know God, never to "believe". actually, You cannot have real Faith (trustfulness) in what you do not know.

I don't know why can't people let people believe in what they want though... let Dr. Fever believe as he wishes, and instead of trying to prove whether Jesus existed or not to him, afterall, didn't Jesus said something like: "you believe now because you have seen me, blessed are those who believe without seeing" so take JCs advice and feel blessed because you believe without seeing...and stop trying to convert people and stop with the antisemitism already too.

peace

Typical Jewish response, say anything even remotely critical of any Jewish person in any time period and you get branded as anti semitic. First of all let me stop a big error on your part in it's tracks. Just because I'm trying to point out flaws in Dr.Fevers argument that Jesus didn't exist does not mean I am Christian. Perhaps if you read all the posts rather then having a knee jerk reaction to someone saying anything bad about any jew, you might have read my post where I say that my belief is that there is a god that is all of the universe and everything in it, you might have realized that.

Oh and on the topic of wild claims, show me where I am trying to convert DrFever or anyone else for that matter to my particular brand of belief.

Stop trying to tell people what they can and cannot do and stop trying to be such a victim because of your religion. Yeah yeah spare me the thousands of years persecution.

Also I never said many people were erased from history, my guess is you inferred that by misunderstanding my use of the word unusual. Perhaps you thought I said not unusual to have people removed from history which would imply removing people from history was routine and therefore it automatically implied many but that's not how I used unusual. I said it was not unusual to destroy evidence of a person to remove them from history. All it would take is a handful of people that was done to, to make my statement correct. Try looking up Damnatio memoriae the Wikipedia describes this as Follows:

The sense of the expression damnatio memoriae and of the sanction is to cancel every trace of the person from the life of Rome, as if he had never existed, in order to preserve the honour of the city. In a city that stressed the social appearance, respectability and the pride of being a true Roman as a fundamental requirement of the citizen, it was perhaps the most severe punishment

Also on that page under the heading of Similar practices in other societies

According to the biblical story, when the ancient Israelites entered the land of Canaan, they were ordered to destroy several pagan tribes and their property; but the tribe of Amalek was not only specifically singled out for destruction, Yahweh would "completely blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven".

Now I can't provide specific examples because if I could then that person was not successfully removed from history.

 

[bombadil.360]

Typical Jewish response, say anything even remotely critical of any Jewish person in any time period and you get branded as anti semitic. First of all let me stop a big error on your part in it's tracks. Just because I'm trying to point out flaws in Dr.Fevers argument that Jesus didn't exist does not mean I am Christian. Perhaps if you read all the posts rather then having a knee jerk reaction to someone saying anything bad about any jew, you might have read my post where I say that my belief is that there is a god that is all of the universe and everything in it, you might have realized that.

Oh and on the topic of wild claims, show me where I am trying to convert DrFever or anyone else for that matter to my particular brand of belief.

Stop trying to tell people what they can and cannot do and stop trying to be such a victim because of your religion. Yeah yeah spare me the thousands of years persecution.

"typical Jewish response" LOL... cute.

with all those "sublime" insights you have about God being "all the universe and everything in it", the best explanation you can offer Dr. Fever about why there's no evidence Jesus existed is because "the Jews did it"...

just come out of the closet already man, and wear that swastika with pride!

 

[HempKat]

"typical Jewish response" LOL... cute.

with all those "sublime" insights you have about God being "all the universe and everything in it", the best explanation you can offer Dr. Fever about why there's no evidence Jesus existed is because "the Jews did it"...

just come out of the closet already man, and wear that swastika with pride!

Show me where I said the Jews did it because if I did that would imply all Jews. What I said were the Romans and Jewish Elite. Now if I were to make some comment about the elite in America, the top 1% would you assume that statement also implied the poor or the vanishing middle class? If you did you would be wrong. The elite of any society is far removed from the totality of their society, that's why they're called Elites.

As for your belief that anyone that even hints at any Jew behaving badly is a closet swastika wearing Anti Semetic, well then explain how there are Jewish members of my family (by marriage) and many Jewish people I call friends? You can't because your inability to admit you haven't a clue what you're talking about gets in the way. Oh and guess what, it was the Jewish person my Mother married in her second and final marriage that taught me calling anyone critical of a Jewish person, "Anti Semetic" was a typical Jewish response. Now run along and play victim somewhere else.

 

[bombadil.360]

Show me where I said the Jews did it because if I did that would imply all Jews. What I said were the Romans and Jewish Elite. Now if I were to make some comment about the elite in America, the top 1% would you assume that statement also implied the poor or the vanishing middle class? If you did you would be wrong. The elite of any society is far removed from the totality of their society, that's why they're called Elites.

As for your belief that anyone that even hints at any Jew behaving badly is a closet swastika wearing Anti Semetic, well then explain how there are Jewish members of my family (by marriage) and many Jewish people I call friends? You can't because your inability to admit you haven't a clue what you're talking about gets in the way. Now run along and play victim somewhere else.

I think you are a bit confused, the victim here is you, not me.

you are the victim of your own prejudices, not me; and your prejudices and explanation of how "the Jewish elite deleted Jesus from history out of fear from Jesus's teaching" shows that is you who does not know anything about the subject and that you can only resort to old anti-semitic arguments... why is that everyone who plays that card also happens to have many Jewish friends and family btw? I guess on the internet we all can have friends and family from any ethnic or religious group after one makes defamatory comments about an ethnic group so as to wash oneself from any consequences.

how many times do we have to read people talking shit about blacks only to then come and say: "but hey, I'm not racist, I have many black friends" lol...

 

[HempKat]

I think you are a bit confused, the victim here is you, not me.

you are the victim of your own prejudices, not me; and your prejudices and explanation of how "the Jewish elite deleted Jesus from history out of fear from Jesus's teaching" shows that is you who does not know anything about the subject and that you can only resort to old anti-semitic arguments... why is that everyone who plays that card also happens to have many Jewish friends and family btw? I guess on the internet we all can have friends and family from any ethnic or religious group after one makes defamatory comments about an ethnic group so as to wash oneself from any consequences.

how many times do we have to read people talking shit about blacks only to then come and say: "but hey, I'm not racist, I have many black friends" lol...

I'm not prejudiced but I already knew you would be unable to admit you were wrong. Also I'm not using old Semitic arguments I referenced that there are biblical accountings of the Jewish Elite (Temple Priests and Guards) that speak to why the Romans and Jewish Elite might have tried to remove Jesus from history. I'm not going to waste time looking up chapter and verse to satisfy your need for evidence. We all have heard and/or read those stories before I'm not going to try to cure your ignorance by repeating them. I'll say this though if what the bible teaches us of Christ's arrest and crucifixion is old Anti Semitic arguments then Christ's disciples who were Jewish must have also been Anti Semitic because it's in their books of the old testament where the Roman/Jewish Elite colluded to remove Christ's influence.

As far as your disbelief of me having Jewish friends and family, well too bad, I don't give a rat's ass if you don't believe me. I'll tell you this though, it's Jewish people like yourself that keep Anti-Semitism alive by always going around playing the victim and accusing anyone critical of any Jew, of being Anti Semitic.

Perhaps the reason you perceive everyone you accuse of being Anti-Semitic, as playing the "I have Jewish friends and Family" is because your accusations are false? You can't even begin to conceive that though because it would require you to admit you were wrong.

 

[ghostmade]

The jews did do it. Jesus was a jew,betrayed by his own people.the very people he was sent to lead.
Jews are shamed by this but ther are forgiven.even as they (romans) nailed him tk the cross he asked for forgiveness on there behalfs for the jews and roman nailers alike.

 

[bombadil.360]

I'll say this though if what the bible teaches us of Christ's arrest and crucifixion is old Anti Semitic arguments then Christ's disciples who were Jewish must have also been Anti Semitic because it's in their books of the old testament where the Roman/Jewish Elite colluded to remove Christ's influence.

LOL!

surely you have proven once again you have zero idea about what you are talking about...

Disciples of Jesus found in the so-called "old testament", really? oh my oh my, this is gonna get interesting if you go and look and find none of that there...

Then if you manage to reach the part of how and when was the New Testament written, by whom, and which arguments the Church used to kill countless Jews, your head might explode...

 

[bombadil.360]

The jews did do it. Jesus was a jew,betrayed by his own people.the very people he was sent to lead.
Jews are shamed by this but ther are forgiven.even as they (romans) nailed him tk the cross he asked for forgiveness on there behalfs for the jews and roman nailers alike.

that was so kind of JC, forgiveness, sadly the Christians did not know about it during all the Christian pogroms against Jews for having "killed God"...

I myself was accused as a child by many Christians for having killed Jesus LOL and many mothers forbade their kids to hang out with me because of it...the good old days indeed!

peace

 

[mr.brunch]

Meanwhile, back in Gotham City

 

[bombadil.360]

Meanwhile, back in Gotham City

back in gotham city is business as usual.