Manu VW

1/ Theodore Herzl is often cited as the Father of political Zionism, but the idea of a Jewish return to Palestine was already alive long before Herzl wrote Der Judenstaat (1896). However, one of, if not the, principal "proto-Zionist" is rarely mentioned in historical or political commentaries, even though he has been far more influential in political history than he gets credit for. The man in question is none other than Moses Hess. For those unaware of this subversive historical figure, continue the thread for a rather intriguing revelation of who Hess is, and how his written thoughts expose a connection between #Zionism, #Freemasonry and #Communism. 🧵 #MosesHess

@mboudry Waar is het bewijs van al die claims over Iran die “eigen burgers afslacht”? Is dat zoiets als de “40 beheaded babies” en “babies out of incubators”?

Iran heeft net 20.000 van zijn eigen burgers afgeslacht, executeert al jaren homoseksuelen en afvalligen, verminkt jonge vrouwen voor het leven omdat ze hun haar tonen, en wil atoomwapens voor zijn apocalyptische strijd tegen de Zionisten. Maar zolang ze maar anti-westers zijn, krijgen ze de volle steun van @Aboujahjah: "Eerlijk: ik hoop dat Iran standhoudt. Iran vecht volgens mij voor de hele mensheid, omdat het zich verzet tegen het megalomane project van Netanyahu en Trump." Heb jij zelf geen dochters, Dyab? Schaam je dood. /2 demorgen.be/nieuws/dyab-ab…

Wat bezielt @demorgen om Dyab Abou Jahjah te laten interviewen door Montasser Alde'emeh over Israël, Gaza en Libanon? Weet @RemyAmkreutz niet dat beide heren na de slachtpartij van 7 oktober om het hardst hun best deden om Hamas te vergoelijken, en daar nooit op terugkwamen? Dat is alsof je Dries Van Langenhove laat interviewen door Filip Dewinter. Journalistiek compleet onverantwoord.

@neveragainlive1 @RabbiShmuley You’ve got it flipped upside down, Shabbos. Truth-seeking Jews should want to become Christian, cause Christ is the Truth.

@RabbiShmuley And a truth seeking Christian should want to become Jewish.

To my Christian brothers: What if everything you were taught about Jesus hating his own people was a lie?

All these tricks you pull out of your sleeves to manipulate Christians to support the anti-Christ won’t work. Rome was the executioner. The Jews were the judge & jury. They sent Jesus to the cross, not because Jesus challenged Rome, but because he challenged the Jews. Don’t get it twisted.

@mboudry @tscheldt @UAntwerpen Good riddance

I received this heartbreaking message from a Jewish professor at @UAntwerpen, who is leaving both the city and the university after four decades. I can hardly express how deeply this saddens and enrages me—especially in light of last week’s craven and disgraceful charade surrounding the honorary doctorate of @FranceskAlbs. "After fifty years living in Antwerp and forty years at the University of Antwerp as student, assistant and professor, I’m leaving. I no longer feel at home in the city and feel completely estranged from my university that has become a hotbed of radicalism and has completely lost its sense of academic values of critical thinking, discussion and genuine diversity of viewpoints. I fear that the student generation that – with the support of the university authorities - has now become indoctrinated and brainwashed to a point of no return. My son who was born and raised in Antwerp and who wears a kippa,  has been called a child murderer on the street by a Flemish person and was told to “get out of here”. At the university the students are shouting that Jews should get out of Palestine. He and his family are leaving too. It just became a bad place for Jews." This is on you, rectors. You have made universities into hostile places for Jews (unless they ritually denounce zionism and Israel). They will abandon you and take all their learning, knowledge and wisdom with them. And don't worry, @UGent, you have scarcely any Jewish professors left to begin with. The great Jewish linguist and classicist Julien Klener has long since retired. When I met him recently, he told me how relieved he is not to have to endure this ideological madness anymore.

@PeterSchiff “doesn’t support everything the Israeli government does” “rarely supports anything the US government does” Yeah, it’s clear you’re a foreign asset.

I'm a Jew and I support Israel, but that doesn't mean I support everything the Israeli government does. I'm also an American, yet I rarely support anything our government does. Thomas Paine wrote that at best government is a necessary evil. Anarchists would say he was half right.

@PortoValhe @Gnosisinformant The sudarion was used to wipe off Jesus’ face before he was wrapped in the sindon. It’s like a big handkerchief. John doesn’t contradict this. You’re seeing things that aren’t there. And I’m incredibly bored with your ineptitude for basic inference. Take care now.

@VW_Manu @Gnosisinformant They are, and they covered two different parts of the body. As John knew but the maker of the Shroud did not. This is possibly why the RCC never recognized it as authentic.

The shroud of Turin is one of my personal IQ tests for Christians. Taylor fails. The idea that it just pops up in the 14th century in Europe undetected prior makes this an IQ test for dumb people. Shrouds don’t make full body images. This would be a miracle in itself but nobody records this in the gospels or any early church fathers or sources. You have a LOW IQ with terrible historical methodology if you think the shroud of Turin is real.

@PortoValhe @Gnosisinformant And the Sindon and Sudarion are not 2 separate pieces of cloth?

@VW_Manu @Gnosisinformant Exactly. Two separate pieces of cloth. John knew this detail of Jewish burial, the forger of the Shroud did not.

John says there were 2 pieces of cloth and we got … 2 matching pieces of cloth. Well, I guess that’s case closed, Sherlock. John actually mentions the head cloth as “wrapped up in its place and separate from the linen”. That you assume the sudarium had to have been around Jesus’ head together with the main shroud is an assumption and your subsequent false dilemma a non-sequitur. Sindonology’s explanation wasn’t an ad hoc to explain away inconsistencies. It was a conclusion based on examination.

@VW_Manu @Gnosisinformant That's called an ad hoc argument. Supposedly, according to the Gospel of John, the two pieces were found in the tomb. So, if genuine, John's account is automatically discredited. If John's account is to be believed, the shroud is false. You choose.

@PortoValhe @Gnosisinformant Sindonologists don't claim the sudarium and the shroud were wrapped together. They say the sudarium was used to cover Jesus' head before he was wrapped in the shroud. How many debunked arguments you got left?

The RCV dismissed it as a forgery in the 14th century. They are now officially "neutral." If the RCC thought it was genuine, they'd accept it (as they accept even spurious evidence of miracles). As it is, they don't. It's been carbon dated to the 13th-14th centuries, which is when it appeared. The artist was also either ignorant of Jewish burial customs and the Gospels, or overeager, so he included the head in his work which would have been wrapped by a different cloth of linen. This is a detail that the author of the Gospel of John did keep in mind.

@MalcangiSarah @danny_layaou 99% of Jews reject Jesus. Zero Muslims reject Jesus. Take your side accordingly, "Christian".

@danny_layaou Not all Jews reject Christ. Don’t repeat stupid arguments you see online.

As a Protestant I gladly stand with the Jews. My Savior, Jesus Christ, is a Jew.

@MalcangiSarah Protestants and Jews have always been historical allies in the fight against Christ and the Church. Protestants as useful idiots, of course; Jews as the willful ones.

The Church has not denounced the Shroud either. They officially take a neutral position. And there's no evidence that the image was painted, at all. You know McCrone wasn't one of the STURP members who were actually in Turin collecting all the data? McCrone was in Chicago. He tested a sticky-tape that was sent to him by the other members and found pigment on it. He concluded therefore that the image was painted. The other STURP members didn't disagree with the presence of those particles, it's that they, the scientists who were actually in Turin collecting the data from the Shroud, immediately noticed the image was *not* the result of pigment. The pigment was not concentrated in the image areas, but scattered along the shroud. And the volume of all the pigment particles combined was still microscopic. So why do skeptics hold up McCrone, who wasn't even in the physical presence of the Shroud, over the rest of the STURP team who were actually there and say McCrone is wrong?

@VW_Manu @Gnosisinformant It's the exact same problem. It's paint on linen, we just don't know how it was painted. The Shroud appeared in the 14th century, out of thin air, and the Church soon dismissed it as a forgery. To this day it's not recognized by the Catholic Church as a genuine article.

Sure, that's a decent analogy, but they're still in a different league. No one ever doubted that the Roman walls were a human creation: we knew how they were built, what tools were used; they simply didn't have the missing ingredient; not because they had no idea of that ingredient's existence or its chemical properties, but because of a certain chemical reaction under certain circumstances. The human fingerprint was all over the Roman walls; there was never an allusion to any supernatural agent. Just a chemical ingenuity on the part of the Romans. The Shroud image has no indication *whatsoever* that it's the product of human agency and it's not just about a missing ingredient. None of the properties of that image make any sense, not today, and especially not 700 years ago. The skeptics pretend that we do, but never has any single attempt at replication successfully produced an image on linen with the same properties. Not even close. Re: "Claiming the Resurrection as the explanation for the Shroud is just circular reasoning, doesn't explain anything" Saying the Shroud has unnatural properties because of a supernatural event is not circular reasoning, it's actually a rational deduction. And it might not explain it sufficiently according to your criteria of natural law, but then again, that's exactly my point about your side: the naturalists have a dogmatic predispostion towards the possibility of a supernatural origin. And they are stubbornly so to the extent that they will forfeit the most rational explanation (ie. the Resurrection) for an irrational scientific one.

We only just figured out how the Romans came up with self-repairing concrete, a technology that we had not been able to replicate because we lacked the knowledge. Not being able to explain it now is not the same thing as it being unexplainable. Claiming the Resurrection as the explanation for the Shroud is just circular reasoning, doesn't explain anything, and returns us to the problem of positing the least likely explanation (a suspension and reversion of the Laws of Nature) as the most likely explanation.

That’s imo a bigger reach, to think that a medieval artist applied a technology that we can’t figure out 7 centuries later after 50 years of scrutiny and research. I’m not excluding an unknown chemical reaction under very extraordinary circumstances. But ultimately, as it stands, this artefact remains mysterious and just happens to be about the most mysterious event in history (Jesus’ resurrection), the most rational hypothesis is that it’s of supernatural origin. People that a priori dismiss supernatural explanations is exactly the problem I pointed out about dogmatic refusal among naturalists.

@VW_Manu @Gnosisinformant I have seen no evidence to suggest that a Shroud that appeared in the age of relic forgeries is actually miraculous in origin. Certainly no miracle has been attributed to it either. "Unknown tech" is a better explanation than "God did it." This is almost always the case.

@PortoValhe @Gnosisinformant Let’s cut to the chase. Do you think the Shroud has been explained by natural law or not?

@VW_Manu @Gnosisinformant But before it was invented no one knew how it worked, right?

@PortoValhe @Gnosisinformant No. We know how it works and we can replicate it.

@VW_Manu @Gnosisinformant Do you think the steam engine was also a miracle?

@PortoValhe @Gnosisinformant If you lack conceptual thinking, then go waste someone else’s time.

@VW_Manu @Gnosisinformant Life isn't a video game, mate.

@PortoValhe @Gnosisinformant You’re just repeating the same thing. Why? If new content is added to a video game, is it more likely that a npc did that or the game developer?

@VW_Manu @Gnosisinformant Because God breaking the Laws of Nature is less probable than a genius coming up with new technology.

@butforwales @maklelan @TaylorRMarshall That’s fair.

@VW_Manu @maklelan @TaylorRMarshall If your belief doesn’t depend on claims such as the apostles dying as martyrs, refusing to recant, then fine, my point doesn’t apply. But if it does, then we’re dealing with the same kind of evidence you just called weak.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ was wrapped in the burial shroud that we now call the “Shroud of Turin”? I do!

@PortoValhe @Gnosisinformant Why?

@VW_Manu @Gnosisinformant A medieval genius coming up with a technique we can't replicate is a better explanation, by far, of the Shroud of Turin than the idea that God suspended and reversed the Laws of Nature.