Q said nothing about Atlanteans. Suggesting we should be talking about them has nothing to do with Q. Not to say we should ignore evidence of the past, but your suggestion doesn't fit with Q, it fits with investigations into history. While such investigations are a part of Q, it's not really a part of Q on that scope, especially since Q never talked about it.

Even calling the previous civilization "Atlanteans" is problematic. Who knows what they were called. Plato (or really Solon) called them Atlanteans. That doesn't mean that is what they were called, or even if there was a city called Atlantis, that the people that lived there belonged to the same group as the other people around the world of the pre-diluvian civilization. There could very well have been many groups, many nations, similar to what we have today, and the people you are calling the Atlanteans were just one group.

The Jews may or may not be related to the Atlanteans. Those in charge almost certainly have knowledge from that time, but that doesn't mean they are the "genetic decendents" of them any more than the rest of us.

On the other hand, to suggest there is no such thing as a Jew is ludicrous. Regardless of their origins, it is trivial to find evidence of Jews and Jewry going back 4000 years or so. When you speak about "Jews" it is unambiguous, and people know what you are talking about, thus having conversations about it doesn't require a lot of complicated backstory.

On the other hand, finding evidence that the Atlanteans even existed is not so easy. Thus having conversations about Atlantis or anything else of that nature is far more problematic and requires a very complicated addition of a ton of context. Even supporting the Jews as Atlanteans is incredibly problematic and I am far from convinced (though I admit the possibility and have seen some evidence that supports the assertion).

Because of all the difficulties with a lack of clear evidence of what really happened in the past, to suggest that we should be calling them "Atlanteans" instead of "Jews" wouldn't really help advance any conversations we should be having. On the contrary, it would disrupt everything. I suggest that your suggestion is not a good suggestion.

Q said nothing about Atlanteans. Suggesting we should be talking about them has nothing to do with Q. Not to say we should ignore evidence of the past, but your suggestion doesn't fit with Q, it fits with investigations into history. While such investigations are a part of Q, it's not really a part of Q on that scope, especially since Q never talked about it.

Even calling the previous civilization "Atlanteans" is problematic. Who knows what they were called. Plato (or really Solon) called them Atlanteans. That doesn't mean that is what they were called, or even if there was a city called Atlantis, that the people that lived there belonged to the same group as the other people around the world of the pre-diluvian civilization. There could very well have been many groups, many nations, similar to what we have today, and the people you are calling the Atlanteans were just one group.

The Jews may or may not be related to the Atlanteans. Those in charge almost certainly have knowledge from that time, but that doesn't mean they are the "genetic decendents" of them any more than the rest of us.

On the other hand, to suggest there is no such thing as a Jew is ludicrous. Regardless of their origins, it is trivial to find evidence of Jews and Jewry going back 4000 years or so. When you speak about "Jews" it is unambiguous, and people know what you are talking about, thus having conversations about it doesn't require a lot of complicated backstory.

On the other hand, finding evidence that the Atlanteans even existed is not so easy. Thus having conversations about Atlantis or anything else of that nature is far more problematic and requires a very complicated addition of a ton of context. Even supporting the Jews as Atlanteans is incredibly problematic and I am far from convinced (though I admit the possibility and have seen some evidence that supports the assertion).

Because of all these difficulties with clear evidence of what really happened in the past, to suggest that we should be calling them "Atlanteans" instead of "Jews" wouldn't really help advance any conversations we should be having. On the contrary, it would disrupt everything. I suggest that your suggestion is not a good suggestion.

Q said nothing about Atlanteans. Suggesting we should be talking about them has nothing to do with Q. Not to say we should ignore evidence of the past, but your suggestion doesn't fit with Q, it fits with investigations into history. While such investigations are a part of Q, it's not really a part of Q on that scope, especially since Q never talked about it.

Even calling the previous civilization "Atlanteans" is problematic. Who knows what they were called. Plato (or really Solon) called them Atlanteans. That doesn't mean that is what they were called, or even if there was a city called Atlantis, that the people that lived there belonged to the same group as the other people around the world of the pre-diluvian civilization. There could very well have been many groups, many nations, similar to what we have today, and the people you are calling the Atlanteans were just one group.

The Jews may or may not be related to the Atlanteans. Those in charge almost certainly have knowledge from that time, but that doesn't mean they are the "genetic decendents" of them any more than the rest of us.

On the other hand, to suggest there is no such thing as a Jew is ludicrous. Regardless of their origins, it is trivial to find evidence of Jews and Jewry going back 4000 years or so. When you speak about "Jews" it is unambiguous, and people know what you are talking about, thus having conversations about it doesn't require a lot of complicated backstory.

On the other hand, finding evidence that the Atlanteans even existed is not so easy. Thus having conversations about Atlantis or anything else of that nature is far more problematic and requires a very complicated addition of a ton of context. Even supporting the Jews as Atlanteans is incredibly problematic and I am far from convinced (though I admit the possibility and have seen some evidence that supports the assertion).

To suggest that we should be calling them "Atlanteans" instead of "Jews" wouldn't really help advance any conversations we should be having. On the contrary, it would disrupt everything. I suggest that your suggestion is not a good suggestion.

Q said nothing about Atlanteans. Suggesting we should be talking about them has nothing to do with Q. Not to say we should ignore evidence of the past, but your suggestion doesn't fit with Q, it fits with investigations into history. While such investigations are a part of Q, it's not really a part of Q on that scope, especially since Q never talked about it.

Even calling the previous civilization "Atlanteans" is problematic. Who knows what they were called. Plato (or really Solon) called them Atlanteans. That doesn't mean that is what they were called, or even if there was a city called Atlantis, that the people that lived there belonged to the same group as the other people around the world of the pre-diluvian civilization. There could very well have been many groups, many nations, similar to what we have today, and the people you are calling the Atlanteans were just one group.

The Jews may or may not be related to the Atlanteans. Those in charge almost certainly have knowledge from that time, but that doesn't mean they are the "genetic decendents" of them any more than the rest of us.

On the other hand, to suggest there is no such thing as a Jew is ludicrous. Regardless of their origins, it is trivial to find evidence of Jews and Jewry going back 4000 years or so. When you speak about "Jews" it is unambiguous, and people know what you are talking about, thus having conversations about it doesn't require a lot of complicated backstory.

On the other hand, finding evidence that the Atlanteans even existed is not so easy. Thus having conversations about Atlantis or anything else of that nature is far more problematic and requires a very complicated addition of a ton of context. Even supporting the Jews as Atlanteans is incredibly problematic and I am far from convinced (though I admit the possibility and have seen some evidence that supports the assertion).

To suggest that we should be calling them "Atlanteans" wouldn't really help advance any conversations we should be having. On the contrary, it would disrupt everything. I suggest that your suggestion is not a good suggestion.

Q said nothing about Atlanteans. Suggesting we should be talking about them has nothing to do with Q. Not to say we should ignore evidence of the past, but your suggestion doesn't fit with Q, it fits with investigations into history. While such investigations are a part of Q, it's not really a part of Q on that scope, especially since Q never talked about it.

Even calling the previous civilization "Atlanteans" is problematic. Who knows what they were called. Plato (or really Solon) called them Atlanteans. That doesn't mean that is what they were called, or even if there was a city called Atlantis, that the people that lived there belonged to the same group as the other people around the world of the pre-diluvian civilization. There could very well have been many groups, many nations, similar to what we have today, and the people you are calling the Atlanteans were just one group.

The Jews may or may not be related to the Atlanteans. Those in charge almost certainly have knowledge from that time, but that doesn't mean they are the "genetic decendents" of them any more than the rest of us.

On the other hand, to suggest there is no such thing as a Jew is ludicrous. Regardless of their origins, it is trivial to find evidence of Jews and Jewry going back 4000 years or so. When you speak about "Jews" it is unambiguous, and people know what you are talking about, thus having conversations about it doesn't require a lot of complicated backstory.

On the other hand, finding evidence that the Atlanteans even existed is not so easy. Thus having conversations about Atlantis or anything else of that nature is far more problematic and requires a very complicated addition of a ton of context. Even supporting the Jews as Atlanteans is incredibly problematic and I am far from convinced (though I admit the possibility and have seen some evidence that supports the assertion).

To suggest that we should be calling them "Atlanteans" wouldn't really help advance any conversations we should be having. On the contrary, it would disrupt everything, so I suggest that your suggestion is not a good suggestion.

Q said nothing about Atlanteans. Suggesting we should be talking about them has nothing to do with Q. Not to say we should ignore evidence of the past, but your suggestion doesn't fit with Q, it fits with investigations into history. While such investigations are a part of Q, it's not really a part of Q on that scope, especially since Q never talked about it.

Even calling the previous civilization "Atlanteans" is problematic. Who knows what they were called. Plato (or really Solon) called them Atlanteans. That doesn't mean that is what they were called, or even if there was a city called Atlantis, that the people that lived there belonged to the same group as the other people around the world of the pre-diluvian civilization. There could very well have been many groups, many nations, similar to what we have today, and the people you are calling the Atlanteans were just one group.

The Jews may or may not be related to the Atlanteans. Those in charge almost certainly have knowledge from that time, but that doesn't mean they are the "genetic decendents" of them any more than the rest of us.

On the other hand, to suggest there is no such thing as a Jew is ludicrous. Regardless of their origins, it is trivial to find evidence of Jews and Jewry going back 4000 years or so. When you speak about "Jews" it is unambiguous, and people know what you are talking about, thus having conversations about it doesn't require a lot of complicated backstory.

On the other hand, finding evidence that the Atlanteans even existed is not so easy. Thus having conversations about Atlantis or anything else of that nature is far more problematic and requires a very complicated addition of a ton of context. Even supporting the Jews as Atlanteans is incredibly problematic and I am far from convinced (though I admit the possibility and have seen some evidence that supports the assertion).

To suggest that we should be calling them "Atlanteans" wouldn't really help advance any conversations we should be having.

Q said nothing about Atlanteans. Suggesting we should be talking about them has nothing to do with Q. Not to say we should ignore evidence of the past, but your suggestion doesn't fit with Q, it fits with investigations into history. While such investigations are a part of Q, it's not really a part of Q on that scope, especially since Q never talked about it.

Even calling the previous civilization "Atlanteans" is problematic. Who knows what they were called. Plato (or really Solon) called them Atlanteans. That doesn't mean that is what they were called, or even if there was a city called Atlantis, that the people that lived there belonged to the same group as the other people around the world of the pre-diluvian civilization. There could very well have been many groups, many nations, similar to what we have today, and the people you are calling the Atlanteans were just one group.

The Jews may or may not be related to the Atlanteans. Those in charge almost certainly have knowledge from that time, but that doesn't mean they are the "genetic decendents" of them any more than the rest of us.

On the other hand, to suggest there is no such thing as a Jew is ludicrous. Regardless of their origins, it is trivial to find evidence of Jews and Jewry going back 4000 years or so. When you speak about "Jews" it is unambiguous, and people know what you are talking about, thus having conversations about it doesn't require a lot of complicated backstory.

On the other hand, finding evidence that the Atlanteans even existed is not so easy. Thus having conversations about Atlantis or anything else of that nature is far more problematic and requires a very complicated addition of a ton of context. Even supporting the Jews as Atlanteans is incredibly problematic and I am far from convinced (though I admit the possibility and have seen some evidence that supports the assertion).

So I'm not sure what the purpose of your post is, but it doesn't really have anything to do with Q.

Q said nothing about Atlanteans. Suggesting we should be talking about them has nothing to do with Q. Not to say we should ignore evidence of the past, but your suggestion doesn't fit with Q, it fits with investigations into history. While such investigations are a part of Q, it's not really a part of Q on that scope, especially since Q never talked about it.

Even calling the previous civilization "Atlanteans" is problematic. Who knows what they were called. Plato (or really Solon) called them Atlanteans. That doesn't mean that is what they were called, or even if there was a city called Atlantis, that the people that lived there belonged to the same as the other people around the world of the pre-diluvian civilization. There could very well have been many groups, many nations, similar to what we have today, and the people you are calling the Atlanteans were just one group.

The Jews may or may not be related to the Atlanteans. Those in charge almost certainly have knowledge from that time, but that doesn't mean they are the "genetic decendents" of them any more than the rest of us.

On the other hand, to suggest there is no such thing as a Jew is ludicrous. Regardless of their origins, it is trivial to find evidence of Jews and Jewry going back 4000 years or so. When you speak about "Jews" it is unambiguous, and people know what you are talking about, thus having conversations about it doesn't require a lot of complicated backstory.

On the other hand, finding evidence that the Atlanteans even existed is not so easy. Thus having conversations about Atlantis or anything else of that nature is far more problematic and requires a very complicated addition of a ton of context. Even supporting the Jews as Atlanteans is incredibly problematic and I am far from convinced (though I admit the possibility and have seen some evidence that supports the assertion).

So I'm not sure what the purpose of your post is, but it doesn't really have anything to do with Q.

Q said nothing about Atlanteans. Suggesting we should be talking about them has nothing to do with Q. Not to say we should ignore evidence of the past, but your suggestion doesn't fit with Q, it fits with investigations into history. While such investigations are a part of Q, it's not really a part of Q on that scope, especially since Q never talked about it.

Even calling the previous civilization "Atlanteans" is problematic. Who knows what they were called. Plato (or really Solon) called them Atlanteans. That doesn't mean that is what they were called, or there was indeed a city called Atlantis, that the people that lived there belonged to the same as the other people around the world of the pre-diluvian civilization. There could very well have been many groups, many nations, similar to what we have today, and the people you are calling the Atlanteans were just one group.

The Jews may or may not be related to the Atlanteans. Those in charge almost certainly have knowledge from that time, but that doesn't mean they are the "genetic decendents" of them any more than the rest of us.

On the other hand, to suggest there is no such thing as a Jew is ludicrous. Regardless of their origins, it is trivial to find evidence of Jews and Jewry going back 4000 years or so. When you speak about "Jews" it is unambiguous, and people know what you are talking about, thus having conversations about it doesn't require a lot of complicated backstory.

On the other hand, finding evidence that the Atlanteans even existed is not so easy. Thus having conversations about Atlantis or anything else of that nature is far more problematic and requires a very complicated addition of a ton of context. Even supporting the Jews as Atlanteans is incredibly problematic and I am far from convinced (though I admit the possibility and have seen some evidence that supports the assertion).

So I'm not sure what the purpose of your post is, but it doesn't really have anything to do with Q.

Q said nothing about Atlanteans. Suggesting we should be talking about them has nothing to do with Q. Not to say we should ignore evidence of the past, but your suggestion doesn't fit with Q, it fits with investigations into history. While such investigations are a part of Q, it's not really a part of Q on that scope, especially since Q never talked about it.

Even calling the previous civilization "Atlanteans" is problematic. Who knows what they were called. Plato (or really Solon) called them Atlanteans. That doesn't mean that is what they were called, or even that the people of Atlantis were the same as the other people around the world of the pre-diluvian civilization. There could very well have been many groups, many nations, similar to what we have today, and the people you are calling the Atlanteans were just one group.

The Jews may or may not be related to the Atlanteans. Those in charge almost certainly have knowledge from that time, but that doesn't mean they are the "genetic decendents" of them any more than the rest of us.

On the other hand, to suggest there is no such thing as a Jew is ludicrous. Regardless of their origins, it is trivial to find evidence of Jews and Jewry going back 4000 years or so. When you speak about "Jews" it is unambiguous, and people know what you are talking about, thus having conversations about it doesn't require a lot of complicated backstory.

On the other hand, finding evidence that the Atlanteans even existed is not so easy. Thus having conversations about Atlantis or anything else of that nature is far more problematic and requires a very complicated addition of a ton of context. Even supporting the Jews as Atlanteans is incredibly problematic and I am far from convinced (though I admit the possibility and have seen some evidence that supports the assertion).

So I'm not sure what the purpose of your post is, but it doesn't really have anything to do with Q.

Q said nothing about Atlanteans. Suggesting we should be talking about them has nothing to do with Q. Not to say we should ignore evidence of the past, but your suggestion doesn't fit with Q, it fits with investigations into history. While such investigations are a part of Q, it's not really a part of Q on that scope, especially since Q never talked about it.

Even calling the previous civilization "Atlanteans" is problematic. Who knows what they were called. Plato (or really Solon) called them Atlanteans. That doesn't mean that is what they were called, or even that the people of Atlantis were the same as the other people around the world of the pre-diluvian civilization. There could very well have been many groups, many nations, similar to what we have today, and the people you are calling the Atlanteans were just one group.

The Jews may or may not be related to the Atlanteans. Those in charge almost certainly have knowledge from that time, but that doesn't mean they are the "genetic decendents" of them any more than the rest of us.

Having said that, to suggest there is no such thing as a Jew is ludicrous. Regardless of their origins, it is trivial to find evidence of Jews and Jewry going back 4000 years or so. When you speak about "Jews" it is unambiguous, and people know what you are talking about, thus having conversations about it doesn't require a lot of complicated backstory.

On the other hand, finding evidence that the Atlanteans even existed is not so easy. Thus having conversations about Atlantis or anything else of that nature is far more problematic and requires a very complicated addition of a ton of context. Even supporting the Jews as Atlanteans is incredibly problematic and I am far from convinced (though I admit the possibility and have seen some evidence that supports the assertion).

So I'm not sure what the purpose of your post is, but it doesn't really have anything to do with Q.