Jesus Christ - reasons for skepticism

[Kapyong]

Gday,

I had a post written up for kopyongs manifesto

So your reading comprehension is so poor, you can't even get my name right!

but at this point it doesnt really matter.

Not any more it doesn't, because your claims been completely demolished. Not that you will ever admit that.

"Cyrilius in 900AD said this..."

Wow!!
Is this your response to Celsus claims from the 2nd century?

Is your reading comprehension really so bad?
You can't tell Celsus from Cyrilius ?!
You can't tell 2nd from 9th century ?!

blah, blah, blah, what is that supposed to mean?

So,
John99 literally cannot face the facts.

When presented with specific ancient claims the Gospels were based on MYTHS, he dishonestly replaces it with "blah blah blah" and asks "what does that mean?" !!

It is crystal clear what it means :

In the very period the Gospels were becoming known, a pagan attacked them as stories based on MYTHS - as FICTION.

John99 is completely unable to face this fact, just like Woody.

And who the hell is Cyrillius?

Who indeed?
I mentioned CELSUS, but you can't actually READ properly.


Kapyong

 

[mustafhakofi]

But you failed to explain why the jews can't shake the stigma of "murdering Jesus", who was tried by Pontious Pilate. Nor have you explained why the "prophet" Jesus is taught in their tradition as a teacher for the gentiles.

Perhaps you missed it, But here it is again, The story is a polemic story, not a historical story, it does not state a historical fact, it's a piece of propaganda against Christianity and against Jesus. The jews have no stigma to shake, there is nowhere! where they state that your jesus was a teacher of anything, it's only written in your bible. and incidentally it only states Pilate in your new testament, nowhere else. You need an extra biblical source to make that point, which you don't have.

Jesus was tried under Caiaphas who served under Simon haNasi. This would be somewhere between 4 AD and 70 AD.

Where does it state that a jesus was tried by anybody other than in your bible. I refer you to my previous post regarding Yeshua.
Who ruled judea at the time of jesus is irrelevant if you haven't establish the existence of a jesus person, do that first and then we can talk about time lines etc...

John 18:14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

Having actual people and places in a book of fiction only helps to give it some authenticity. This in no way proves a jesus person existed. Using the bible to verify itself is wholly infantile.

List of Jewish Leaders in the Land of Israelsorry, nice try....:shrug:

Extremely poor rebuttal, try again.

 

[Woody]

Perhaps you missed it, But here it is again, The story is a polemic story, not a historical story, it does not state a historical fact, it's a piece of propaganda against Christianity and against Jesus. The jews have no stigma to shake, there is nowhere!

yeah, just like the holocast never happened, and I'm the king of England.

where they state that your jesus was a teacher of anything, it's only written in your bible.

It is commonly taught in Jewish tradition.

and incidentally it only states Pilate in your new testament, nowhere else.

you don't seem to know much....

the Pilate Stone was discovered in 1961 and it's kept at the Jerusalem Museum of antiquities.

coins minted under Pilate:

You need an extra biblical source to make that point, which you don't have.

That's quite funny. You are very entertaining.

Where does it state that a jesus was tried by anybody other than in your bible.

In jewish tradition.

I refer you to my previous post regarding Yeshua.

Yeshua is a common name. By the way Barabbas's first name was Jesus too. Jesus (Yeshua) Barabbas, a criminal, was exchanged for Jesus Christ during the roman trial.

Who ruled judea at the time of jesus is irrelevant if you haven't establish the existence of a jesus person, do that first and then we can talk about time lines etc...

The blood of this person Jesus you say doesn't exist is on the Jews even today, as you ,an arab, defend the jews better than a zionist. ROFL. My irony meter just broke.

Having actual people and places in a book of fiction only helps to give it some authenticity. This in no way proves a jesus person existed. Using the bible to verify itself is wholly infantile.

You have failed once again to tell us why the jews can't shake the stigma of killing Jesus, and why Jesus is taught in jewish tradition to be a prophet, but not the messiah. I'm tired of asking. Is this the best sciforums has to offer to support the Jesus Myth Hypothesis? I'm getting bored.

extremely poor rebuttal, try again.

You aren't worth debating... really

 

[mustafhakofi]

yeah, just like the holocast never happened, and I'm the king of England.

G'day your highness, we have evidence for the holocast but none for a biblical jesus.

It is commonly taught in Jewish tradition.

(Appeal to popularity)Where!, You don't mean in the talmud do you, lol, that was written from the third century onward.

you don't seem to know much....

the coins minted under Pilate:

Lol, I never said he didn't exist, I said it only names him as the executioner of jesus in your NT. in reply to this "the jews can't shake the stigma of "murdering Jesus", who was tried by Pontious Pilate."Your reading comprehension is terrible. So I repeat the jews have nothing to shake and nowhere else bar your NT does it state that pilate executed jesus.
So because Her majesty Elizabeth the second, knighted James Bond. In a book/film it means that Bond is no longer fictional. I repeat Having actual people and places in a book of fiction only helps to give it some authenticity. the biblical jesus still remain fictional

You need an extra biblical source to make that point, which you don't have.

That's quite funny. You are very entertaining.

Then feel free to cite some.
I'm glad I amuse you, your amusing me too.

In jewish tradition.

(Appeal to popularity) Where!, You don't mean in the Talmud do you, lol, that was written from the third century onward.

Yeshua is a common name. By the way

(Appeal to popularity) Yes a lot of Hispanics too. does that make Jesus Alvarez the messiah.
Wing and Wong and Smith and Jones are common too, whats your point.

Barabbas's first name was Jesus too. Jesus (Yeshua) Barabbas, a criminal, was exchanged for Jesus Christ during the roman trial.

So! no relevance, it's fiction.

The blood of this person Jesus you say doesn't exist is on the Jews even today,

(Begging the question) How so if it is only written in your NT, the jews certainly don't feel guilty.

as you ,an arab, defend the jews better than a zionist.

I am not defending the jews I don't believe in any of it, I would defend the christian with the same strength. You hold a extreme resentment towards the jews, I hold none, I don't think they have done anything wrong. Just another example of Christianities intolerance to others, and it's divisiveness.
Christian virtues, Jesus would be so proud.

You have failed once again to tell us why the jews can't shake the stigma of killing Jesus,

It is for you to prove they need too. They themselves don't think they need too.

why Jesus is taught in jewish tradition to be a prophet, but not the messiah.

(Appeal to popularity)Where!, You don't mean in the talmud do you, lol, that was written from the third century onward.

I'm tired of asking. Is this the best sciforums has to offer to support the Jesus Myth Hypothesis? I'm getting bored.

It's your reading comprehension, and your mental capacity, deductive reasoning skills, close mindedness, that is at fault, you have been thoroughly refuted on all counts throughout this thread but you have ignored all of it.

You aren't worth debating... really

You lose! Give me some objective evidence that can be verified, and you wouldn't feel so insecure.
Anyhow if you haven't got the strength of your convictions, then goodbye to you.

 

[Woody]

You hold a extreme resentment towards the jews, I hold none, I don't think they have done anything wrong.

False accusation. Jesus was a jew, and I already said I believe they are the chosen people. You need to apologize.

Just another example of Christianities intolerance to others, and it's divisiveness.

You are just being another example of an arrogant atheist that browbeats and labels people -- and this kind of atheist reputation is the talk of the internet. It has been confirmed here at sciforums. Rude, arrogant, intolerant, and uncivil.

Your atheist PR really sucks real real bad.

Christian virtues, Jesus would be so proud. It is for you to prove they need too. They themselves don't think they need too. (Appeal to popularity)Where!, You don't mean in the talmud do you, lol, that was written from the third century onward. It's your reading comprehension, and your mental capacity, deductive reasoning skills, close mindedness, that is at fault, you have been thoroughly refuted on all counts throughout this thread but you have ignored all of it.You lose! Give me some objective evidence that can be verified, and you wouldn't feel so insecure.

As one poster said -- if Jesus never existed we wouldn't be talking about it, and why should you, an atheist, even care? We know why... it haunts your conscience.

Anyhow if you haven't got the strength of your convictions, then goodbye to you.

blah blah blah. same old condescending attitude. Everybody take a good look. THIS is an atheist.

Originally Posted by mustafhakofi
The jews have no stigma to shake, there is nowhere!

 

[mustafhakofi]

False accusation.

How so!

Jesus was a jew, and I already said I believe they are the chosen people. You need to apologize.

Perhaps I'm wrong but this is a direct slur on the jewish people, it shows your severe intolerance. "They have been living with it ever since as "Christ Murderers", and that in itself is a testament. The finger of accusation is pointed squarely at them"http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=89693&page=6=#114
"Christ Murderers" cuz of their stigma. it's BADD. real real BADDDD. but their stigma means plenty to them your arrogance and intolerance, keeps stating they have guilt, or should have guilt, but they don't. it is a failing of yours, and your racist bias.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=89693&page=7=#125 Your a very intolerant person, hell you even called me an Arab, whilst not even knowing my ethnicity.
Jesus Killer stigma on the jews.
and the blood of Jesus has been on the jews ever since.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=89693&page=7=#137

Sorry you'll get no apology from me, your not deserved of that respect in this regard. You should be apologizing to the Jewish people, for your anti-Semitism.

You are just being another example of an arrogant atheist that browbeats and labels people -- and this kind of atheist reputation is the talk of the internet. It has been confirmed here at sciforums. Rude, arrogant, intolerant, and uncivil.

Your atheist PR really sucks real real bad.

Honesty usually hurts.
You are unwilling to accept anything, other than your blinkered views, you've been refuted again and again, and yet have the audacity to say I'm (Rude, arrogant, intolerant, and uncivil.) People only have to review my posts to know that I'm none of those things.
Well Sir, the last thing a theist does when their losing a debate is get personal.

As one poster said -- if Jesus never existed we wouldn't be talking about it, and why should you, an atheist, even care?

Because religion is dangerous, it kills people.

We know why... it haunts your conscience.

Lol, I was born and brought up Muslim, are you sure it haunts, "my Conscience"

blah blah blah. same old condescending attitude. Everybody take a good look. THIS is an atheist.

We are all atheist, you too. I'm a Humanist.

The jews have no stigma to shake, there is nowhere! where they state that your jesus was a teacher of anything, it's only written in your bible. Full quote added

This is your intolerance rearing it's head again.
Oh and don't quote mine it shows your dishonest side.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

False accusation

As one poster said -- if Jesus never existed we wouldn't be talking about it, and why should you, an atheist, even care? We know why... it haunts your conscience.

Jus qurious... whether the Jesus/God/Holey-Bible stuff is true or not... do you want it to be true... an if so... why.???

 

[Medicine*Woman]

yeah, just like the holocast never happened, and I'm the king of England.

you don't seem to know much....

*************
M*W: Once again you have shown your glowing ignorance of facts on a subject you know nothing about!

The antiquities market in Jerusalem is known to be rife with scam artists and scoundrels. This Pilate Stone you mention was probably made in about 1961 and passed off as a 2000 year old authentic piece. Have you never gone to a museum (any museum) and noticed how many incorrect labels are on the uh "discoveries" on display?

Yeshua is a common name. By the way Jesus (Yeshua) Barabbas, a criminal, was exchanged for Jesus Christ during the roman trial.

*************
M*W: Yeshua was a common Hebrew name in those days. "Jesus" was the Greek version of the name. "Barabbas" was not a name, it was a title. Apparently, you don't know what the title means. If you could remember for one split second that the story meant that Jesus Barabbas was let go by the request of the people, and Pilate set Jesus Barabbas free. It's an ancient myth based on the death and resurrection of the Sun.

You aren't worth debating... really

*************
M*W: Funny how you don't want to debate anyone who knows more than you about your own religion. You are an embarassment to your religion and to this forum.

 

[SkinWalker]

As explained in detail in the post above,
Woody was wrong in his claim that no-one doubted Jesus until recent centuries.

There are numerous doubts and sceptical claims from as far back as the 2nd century - including Celsus' claim that the Gospels were based on MYTHS, and Porphyry saying the evangelist's INVENTED the story, and even Christians who didn't believe Jesus came in the flesh.

Of course, as others have pointed out - this was not a time of great scepticism, people believed in all sorts of beings and god-men. No-one denied Bacchus, or Osiris, or Hercules until quite late too.

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

Pardon?
I have argued based on facts which can be checked, and you attack me as a coward for not expressing my beliefs? How bizzare.

This is to be expected when believers and religionists are faced with facts. Rather than educate themselves or continue rational discussion, they generally resort to ad hominem attacks. I wouldn't take it personally.

Iasion demolished Woody, so Woody ran away from his posts - how's THAT for cowardice?

Intellectual cowardice or just a desire to not be faced with opinions of those with whom he'll be forced to either reconcile facts or compartmentalize a rational process. Its fascinating to no end the extremes people go to avoid questioning their preconceived notions or even considering whether their positions might be wrong. Rather than admit that the physical evidence for Jesus as depicted in religious mythology is scant, adherents like Woody would rather go on arguing from ignorance and special pleading where, somehow, his conclusions deserve a different set of rules when it comes to evaluation.

Whether or not a religious cult figure existed who went by the name "Jesus" or not is beside the point. The legend and mythical hero that the name has come to represent almost certainly did not exist. For such a being to exist the laws of physics would need to be shown to also be relative.

In addition, there is good reason to take everything in biblical mythology with many grains of salt if just for the things it gets utterly wrong and its internal contradictions. This, however, is the type of apologetic compartmentalization that gives the appearance of intellectual cowardice (the act or process of being afraid to examine facts and engage in true academic discourse) in matters like the historicity of Jesus.

Did you think we wouldn't notice your dishonest sleight of hand there Woody?

You claimed Haeckel's pictures were used in your textbooks.

When in fact, Haeckel's pictures were rejected as distorted in the 19th century - well over a 100 years ago. Textbooks DO sometimes show them as historical curiousities, NOT as evidence of evolution.

So now, instead of admitting you were wrong, you CHANGE the claim to
"The biogenetic law" !?

How dishonest.
You just CANNOT ever admit you were wrong, can you WOody?

Admitting one is wrong is a quality of intellectual courage -the opposite of intellectual cowardice.

And I probably wouldn't use such harsh terminology had Woody not invoked the well-refuted Haeckel argument that members of young-earth creationist cults have been invoking and getting their collective faces clobbered with intellectual bitch-slaps for years.

Yup, true to form, Woody simply kill-files anyone who shows he is wrong - eventually Woody can only see those posts that agree with him - so he thinks he has won !

Not everyone.

How sad and pathetic.

Indeed.

 

[SkinWalker]

It's an ancient myth based on the death and resurrection of the Sun.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but that's an argument I've watched you make over and over and it just doesn't hold up. No academic or scholarly source I've ever read or studied has even suggested it as a viable hypothesis, although it does appear to be held in high-regard among several fringe authors.

 

[Woody]

I bring up the two points that no atheist cares to address:

1) In Jewish tradition Jesus is taught as a prophet for gentiles, but not the messiah. The jews have no interest in perpetuating a Jesus myth. So I ask you, why are they?

2) No Jesus Myther has presented an adequate explanation for the Jesus Killer stigma on the jews from the day of his trial. If Jesus never existed, why didn't the early jews just say so, and rid themselves of this stigma that has followed them for almost 2000 years and culminated in the holocast? I'm sorry but denial of this fact simply will not do.

I bring to your attention once again the Jewish apologetic for the crucifiction of Jesus of Nazereth. It denies Jesus was messiah, but admits he was a Jewish teacher:

His Blood Be Upon Us and the Jewish People

The blood of this Jesus, whom atheists say does not exist, is on the jewish people, and nobody can wash it off -- not even the jews -- they know it is true. Even 2000 years later, the blood of Jesus is more powerful than any atheist and the testimony is undeniable even TODAY. Those who try to wash away the blood are defeated by the truth and so it goes on to every generation. It can NOT be defeated because it is the truth.

I do not care to hang around such an inhospitable crowd of histerical, arrogant, condescending and downright rude atheists. It's all about mind-control here. I have the information I need here to make a full report on my next blog post which is linked to a couple of major world syndicated publications. I will also be contacting an atheist organization that claims "atheist arrogance" is a myth. It is no myth here at sciforums and the appropriate people will be informed.

My work is done here.

Good day and God bless.

 

[(Q)]

I do not care to hang around such an inhospitable crowd of histerical, arrogant, condescending and downright rude atheists. It's all about mind-control here. I have the information I need here to make a full report on my next blog post which is linked to a couple of major world information publications. I will also be contacting an atheist organization that claims "atheist arrogance" is a myth. It is no myth here at sciforums and the appropriate people will be informed.

Fill yer boots. :wave:

 

[Woody]

Fill yer boots. :wave:

It hasn't been a pleasure, but I didn't expect it to be.

 

[Woody]

How so!

an apology or two is in order here.

Perhaps I'm wrong but this is a direct slur on the jewish people, it shows your severe intolerance.

I strongly disagree with your profiling tactics, and no slur has been made in my opinion. I feel this is a dishonest misrepresentation by you. Besides you are supposed to be debating the point not attacking the debater. Isn't that a rule here? I feel you have chosen to accuse rather than have rational debate. I can only conclude you don't have a vaild counterpoint.

You took my words out of context::

They have been living with it ever since as "Christ Murderers", and that in itself is a testament. The finger of accusation is pointed squarely at them"

You deliberately left out Matthew 27:25, which it referenced:

Matthew 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Can't I make a logical point about Matthew 27:25 without a personal attack from you?

You are indeed wrong about my feelings toward the jewish people whom I respect, but they do have a stigma regarding the death of Jesus, and it is unshakable. It is wrong to hate people because of their stigma, but they have carried this stigma for a long time. Ask any Jew.

Even as a white person in america I carry the stigma of slavery on african americans, though I wasn't there at the time. Some of my ancestors possibly could have owned slaves -- but there is no proof. And if reparations are paid to african americans, then some of it will be coming from me though I feel I did nothing wrong, and I inherited no economic benefit from the civil war era. Slavery is a white stigma, like the blood of christ is a stigma for the jews. It's real. It doesn't bother africans to accuse whites of something they indeed did. That is the way stigma works in my experience -- is there something racist about this?

I wish no ill will toward the jewish people as I've already said, and I feel it's mean-spirited and downright uncivil for you to make personal attacks like this. I have not knowingly treated you this way or anyone else. If you feel that I have then I indeed apologize.

You said you were from a muslim background and I thought that included arab descent as well -- my mistake. If you were offended by my reference to this then I do apologize. I did not mean it as an insult.

I wait for your apologies.

There will be no more debate.

 

[Woody]

Hi all,


How dishonest!
It was in your book as an example of a past ERROR.
It was NOT in your book as an example of current science.
Lieing for Jesus again, Woody?


Sure, as an example of a past ERROR.
Not as current science.
Lieing again it seems.


False.
Completely an totally 100% wrong.
Haeckel's picture are NOT proof of evolution,
and were NEVER claimed as such.


Sadly, Woody is now reduced to lieing outright.
How very sad.


Kapyong

I suggest you look at a few textbooks:

I. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999)*

II. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002)*

III. Textbook III. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998)

IV. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th ed, Wadsworth, 1998)

V. Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M.Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003)

VI. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Wadsworth, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003)

VII. William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall, 1999)

VIII. Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)

IX. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)

X. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998)

The biogenetic theory of Haeckel has been discarded, but it has been reformulated and represented as a proof of evolution.

The source is the Center for Science and Culture: What Do Modern Textbooks Really Say About Haeckel's Embryos

Whether or not you accept this, the biogenetic theory was taught in my high school biology course as a factual proof of evolution in 1968. The gill slits and tail were both big selling points.

Thanks for all the respect.

I quote from the CSC:

Therefore, what we are claiming is that various modern textbooks have used Haeckel’s embryo drawings in precisely the manner that Darwinists now deny:

Once again the early embryonic stages are cited as the strongest evidence, because they are difficult to differentiate in "appearance."

I randomly pulled a quote from just one of the texts:

For example look at the embryo in Figure 7. You can see that a rabbit embryo is more similar to human embryo than a fish embryo. This provides one piece of evidence that rabbits are more closely related to humans than fishes.

So this is evidence?

Now I conclude regarding your conduct which I consider both unprofessional and uncivil. If I made any mistake here it was not intentional, and it seems you could be a big enough person to give me the benefit of any doubt. But I feel your communication is rather poor, so I have chosen to ignore it.....I have the right to do so. If you have a valid point, please make it without all the accusations. Is this not reasonable? Wouldn't this approach look better?

Read your quote again at the beginning of this post. Are you really expecting me to listen to this and answer it? I do not feel obligated to answer, or to even read it, nor should I feel obligated.

The sad part is that your conduct is the norm here. It's ok here for an atheist to slander a deist, but deists must walk on eggshells lest they cause an emotional outburst from people that can't seem to handle it here. About every atheist post in this thread is emotion laden upon reading -- and hardly a conduit for reasoned discussion.

 

[Roman]

I don't find the following argument convincing:

Evolution contains scientific hypotheses.
Some scientific hypotheses are shown to be wrong.
Some hypotheses regarding evolution are wrong.

.: Therefore Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior.

 

[Woody]

I don't find the following argument convincing:

Evolution contains scientific hypotheses.
Some scientific hypotheses are shown to be wrong.
Some hypotheses regarding evolution are wrong.

.: Therefore Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior.

Why bring it up then? It's just some kind of strawman. :shrug:

 

[Woody]

I bring up the two points that no atheist cares to address:

1) In Jewish tradition Jesus is taught as a prophet for gentiles, but not the messiah. The jews have no interest in perpetuating a Jesus myth. So I ask you, why are they?

2) No Jesus Myther has presented an adequate explanation for the Jesus Killer stigma on the jews from the day of his trial. If Jesus never existed, why didn't the early jews just say so, and rid themselves of this stigma that has followed them for almost 2000 years and culminated in the holocast? I'm sorry but denial of this fact simply will not do.

I bring to your attention once again the Jewish apologetic for the crucifiction of Jesus of Nazereth. It denies Jesus was messiah, but admits he was a Jewish teacher:

His Blood Be Upon Us and the Jewish People

The blood of this Jesus, whom atheists say did not exist, is on the jewish people, and nobody can wash it off -- not even the jews -- they know it is true and admit Jesus existed. In the end the truth prevails. The jews should not be hated by anyone, and the verse in Matthew is no excuse for hating them, but they do have the stigma of "Jesus Killers". Jesus, by the way, forgave them while on the cross.

 

[John99]

the best thing to do is study roman history, not related to Jesus proper necessily but concentrated on the romans. the core of the roman empire is hard to envision now because i they were a mixture of many cultures but were not accepting of religious ideology so Jewish people would not considerr themselves roman and of course resisted the romans anyway. people will debate they had a relgious belief but were not motivated by relgion.

of course soon after rome fell and the geneological makeup of romans no longer has meaning or can be speculative.

obviously roman lawmakers would have authority over all executions. this was the Iudaea Province.

 

[Roman]

I bring up the two points that no atheist cares to address:

1) In Jewish tradition Jesus is taught as a prophet for gentiles, but not the messiah. The jews have no interest in perpetuating a Jesus myth. So I ask you, why are they?

2) No Jesus Myther has presented an adequate explanation for the Jesus Killer stigma on the jews from the day of his trial. If Jesus never existed, why didn't the early jews just say so, and rid themselves of this stigma that has followed them for almost 2000 years and culminated in the holocast? I'm sorry but denial of this fact simply will not do.

I bring to your attention once again the Jewish apologetic for the crucifiction of Jesus of Nazereth. It denies Jesus was messiah, but admits he was a Jewish teacher:

His Blood Be Upon Us and the Jewish People

The blood of this Jesus, whom atheists say did not exist, is on the jewish people, and nobody can wash it off -- not even the jews -- they know it is true and admit Jesus existed. In the end the truth prevails. The jews should not be hated by anyone, and the verse in Matthew is no excuse for hating them, but they do have the stigma of "Jesus Killers". Jesus, by the way, forgave them while on the cross.

Why does this matter?