Christcucks on suicide watch

[King Solomon]

Funny how it‘s always satanists or self proclaimed "luciferians" who do these pointless threads.

Yep, and sometimes they won't even know they're satanic/luciferian because they're following this new age crap that's just satanism qrapped in this spiritual garbage. For Example Billy Carson says he is God and God is him and everyone is God. This is literally the first lie Lucifer made in the saying ye shall not die ye shall be as God's. People are still falling for this crap. Then they'll go down the path of Aliens not realizing these are just demons (they only stop attacking by using the name of Jesus Christ.

 

[holy]

"ROMAN RAPE THEORY" (A.K.A BULLSHIT!!!!!)


This theory is such a historically bankrupt argument it's actually painful to read.

This whole theory is based on such weak historical methodology it wouldn't pass a freshman history class.

So, here's why this is complete bullshit:

First, you're using Crossan's SPECULATION about general Roman military behavior to make a specific historical claim.


Are you fucking kidding me?

That's like saying,
"Vikings sometimes raided England, therefore your specific English ancestor from 800 AD was definitely killed by Vikings."
It's historically illiterate reasoning.


The whole Panthera thing
To be honet, this just shows such a basic misunderstanding of ancient sources it's fucking hilarious yet embarrassing.
The "son of Panthera" claim comes from the Talmud, written centuries after Jesus, and it's clearly a polemical corruption of "parthenos" (virgin).
It's like when kids make fun of someone's name. It's mockery, not history.
Jewish critics were making a pun to mock Christian claims, not preserving some secret historical truth.


Tombstone in Germany
Holy shit, the reaching here is Olympic-level.
You found a guy named Panthera who was a Roman soldier, so OBVIOUSLY he must be Jesus's father?
...No.
There were thousands of Roman soldiers named Panthera. It's like finding a guy named John Smith in 1940s New York and claiming he MUST be the grandfather of some random modern John Smith.
That's not how historical evidence works.


But here's where this theory completely falls apart:
If Jesus was really the product of a Roman rape, it would have been THE killer argument for Jesus's opponents.
Think about it: In a deeply honor-shame culture, where genealogy was everything, this would have been the nuclear option.
Yet, in all the ancient attacks on Christianity, even from its harshest critics, this claim only appears centuries later as an obvious polemical response to Christian claims about virgin birth.

The early opponents of Christianity accused Jesus of EVERYTHING they could think of
(being a magician, breaking the Sabbath, threatening the Temple)
but this rape claim is conspicuously absent from all early sources.
Why? Because it's like claiming you have dirt on a politician but waiting 200 years to use it.
It makes no historical sense.

So far, you've based your argument on:
- Speculation presented as fact
- Misuse of general historical conditions to make specific claims
- Misunderstanding of ancient polemical literature
- Coincidental evidence stretched beyond breaking point
- Complete ignorance of how historical methodology works

I'll move on.


Pseudo-intellectual's Attempt At Psychoanalyzing Jesus Through Social Outcast Theory (A.K.A, MORE BULLSHIT!!!!!)

Holy shit, this is where it gets even dumber.

What a fucking genius you are for trying to connect Greek pharmakos traditions, Jewish scapegoat rituals, and... rhesus macaque behavior?

AGAIN, are you kidding me?

This is like trying to explain modern American politics by comparing it to both ancient Mesopotamian temple rituals and how penguins choose their mates.
It's such a methodologically incoherent mess it's actually impressive.

Let me go through it, piece by piece:

1. The pharmakos comparison is complete bullshit because it ignores BASIC HISTORICAL FACTS about Jesus's actual social position.

We know Jesus:

- Had disciples (both male and female)
- Was invited to dinner by social elites
- Had wealthy supporters
- Led a significant movement
- Was considered threatening enough for political execution

Does this sound like a fucking social outcast to you?

This wasn't some lonely kid getting beaten up in the streets - he was leading a movement that scared the SHIT out of both religious and political authorities.


2. The "Jewish scapegoat" argument shows such PROFOUND gnorance of Second Temple Judaism it's actually painful.

Jews weren't running around looking for human scapegoats.
They had an established ritual system.

You're basically saying
"Jews had a goat ritual, therefore they must have treated Jesus like a goat!"

That's fucking fan fiction.
Not historical analysis


3. And then you, being the absolute genius you are, brings in rhesus macaques because... why exactly?
Oh right, because if monkeys do something, humans must do exactly the same thing in exactly the same way!

Fucking brilliant.

Let's just ignore all of human culture, society, and religious complexity because some monkeys pick on each other.


4. The "would have been defenseless in that patriarchal world" claim is such obvious bullshit it hurts.

Jesus was:

- Part of an extended family network (had brothers, sisters, cousins)
- From a skilled trade background (carpentry)
- Literate enough to read Torah in synagogue
- Well-versed in Jewish law and tradition

You knew all of these and just decided this was just some helpless orphan.
Dude, this was someone embedded in community networks with marketable skills and religious education.




The whole argument is based on this weird fantasy of Jesus as some bullied outcast, when every historical source we have shows him as a charismatic leader who could draw crowds, challenge authorities, and build a movement that survived his death.

But here's the thing:
This whole theory requires us to believe that a supposedly traumatized, socially rejected outcast somehow:

- Developed sophisticated theological arguments
- Created innovative ethical teachings
- Built a movement that attracted both poor and wealthy followers
- Challenged both religious and political authorities
- Inspired such loyalty that people died for his message
- Founded a movement that survived brutal persecution


Yeah, totally sounds like the profile of a bullied social reject who never recovered from childhood trauma.

On a serious note, this isn't historical analysis.
You're trying to retcon Jesus's entire life to fit your edgy narrative while showing you don't understand:

- Second Temple Judaism
- Ancient Mediterranean society
- Historical methodology
- Basic human psychology
- How social movements work

You threw together random concepts from sociology, primatology, and pop psychology, sprinkled in some half-understood ancient history, and called it an argument. It's the kind of pseudo-intellectual bullshit that only impresses people who've never actually studied history or religion seriously.

This whole argument is what happens when someone learns just enough to sound smart to other ignorant people, but not enough to realize how much they don't know.
It's Dunning-Kruger effect in written form.

Nonetheless, God bless.
​

Spoiler: Tag

@Carbine​

 

[LancasteR]

"ROMAN RAPE THEORY" (A.K.A BULLSHIT!!!!!)


This theory is such a historically bankrupt argument it's actually painful to read.

This whole theory is based on such weak historical methodology it wouldn't pass a freshman history class.

So, here's why this is complete bullshit:

First, you're using Crossan's SPECULATION about general Roman military behavior to make a specific historical claim.


Are you fucking kidding me?

That's like saying,
"Vikings sometimes raided England, therefore your specific English ancestor from 800 AD was definitely killed by Vikings."
It's historically illiterate reasoning.


The whole Panthera thing
To be honet, this just shows such a basic misunderstanding of ancient sources it's fucking hilarious yet embarrassing.
The "son of Panthera" claim comes from the Talmud, written centuries after Jesus, and it's clearly a polemical corruption of "parthenos" (virgin).
It's like when kids make fun of someone's name. It's mockery, not history.
Jewish critics were making a pun to mock Christian claims, not preserving some secret historical truth.


Tombstone in Germany
Holy shit, the reaching here is Olympic-level.
You found a guy named Panthera who was a Roman soldier, so OBVIOUSLY he must be Jesus's father?
...No.
There were thousands of Roman soldiers named Panthera. It's like finding a guy named John Smith in 1940s New York and claiming he MUST be the grandfather of some random modern John Smith.
That's not how historical evidence works.


But here's where this theory completely falls apart:
If Jesus was really the product of a Roman rape, it would have been THE killer argument for Jesus's opponents.
Think about it: In a deeply honor-shame culture, where genealogy was everything, this would have been the nuclear option.
Yet, in all the ancient attacks on Christianity, even from its harshest critics, this claim only appears centuries later as an obvious polemical response to Christian claims about virgin birth.

The early opponents of Christianity accused Jesus of EVERYTHING they could think of
(being a magician, breaking the Sabbath, threatening the Temple)
but this rape claim is conspicuously absent from all early sources.
Why? Because it's like claiming you have dirt on a politician but waiting 200 years to use it.
It makes no historical sense.

So far, you've based your argument on:
- Speculation presented as fact
- Misuse of general historical conditions to make specific claims
- Misunderstanding of ancient polemical literature
- Coincidental evidence stretched beyond breaking point
- Complete ignorance of how historical methodology works

I'll move on.


Pseudo-intellectual's Attempt At Psychoanalyzing Jesus Through Social Outcast Theory (A.K.A, MORE BULLSHIT!!!!!)

Holy shit, this is where it gets even dumber.

What a fucking genius you are for trying to connect Greek pharmakos traditions, Jewish scapegoat rituals, and... rhesus macaque behavior?

AGAIN, are you kidding me?

This is like trying to explain modern American politics by comparing it to both ancient Mesopotamian temple rituals and how penguins choose their mates.
It's such a methodologically incoherent mess it's actually impressive.

Let me go through it, piece by piece:

1. The pharmakos comparison is complete bullshit because it ignores BASIC HISTORICAL FACTS about Jesus's actual social position.

We know Jesus:

- Had disciples (both male and female)
- Was invited to dinner by social elites
- Had wealthy supporters
- Led a significant movement
- Was considered threatening enough for political execution

Does this sound like a fucking social outcast to you?

This wasn't some lonely kid getting beaten up in the streets - he was leading a movement that scared the SHIT out of both religious and political authorities.


2. The "Jewish scapegoat" argument shows such PROFOUND gnorance of Second Temple Judaism it's actually painful.

Jews weren't running around looking for human scapegoats.
They had an established ritual system.

You're basically saying
"Jews had a goat ritual, therefore they must have treated Jesus like a goat!"

That's fucking fan fiction.
Not historical analysis


3. And then you, being the absolute genius you are, brings in rhesus macaques because... why exactly?
Oh right, because if monkeys do something, humans must do exactly the same thing in exactly the same way!

Fucking brilliant.

Let's just ignore all of human culture, society, and religious complexity because some monkeys pick on each other.


4. The "would have been defenseless in that patriarchal world" claim is such obvious bullshit it hurts.

Jesus was:

- Part of an extended family network (had brothers, sisters, cousins)
- From a skilled trade background (carpentry)
- Literate enough to read Torah in synagogue
- Well-versed in Jewish law and tradition

You knew all of these and just decided this was just some helpless orphan.
Dude, this was someone embedded in community networks with marketable skills and religious education.




The whole argument is based on this weird fantasy of Jesus as some bullied outcast, when every historical source we have shows him as a charismatic leader who could draw crowds, challenge authorities, and build a movement that survived his death.

But here's the thing:
This whole theory requires us to believe that a supposedly traumatized, socially rejected outcast somehow:

- Developed sophisticated theological arguments
- Created innovative ethical teachings
- Built a movement that attracted both poor and wealthy followers
- Challenged both religious and political authorities
- Inspired such loyalty that people died for his message
- Founded a movement that survived brutal persecution


Yeah, totally sounds like the profile of a bullied social reject who never recovered from childhood trauma.

On a serious note, this isn't historical analysis.
You're trying to retcon Jesus's entire life to fit your edgy narrative while showing you don't understand:

- Second Temple Judaism
- Ancient Mediterranean society
- Historical methodology
- Basic human psychology
- How social movements work

You threw together random concepts from sociology, primatology, and pop psychology, sprinkled in some half-understood ancient history, and called it an argument. It's the kind of pseudo-intellectual bullshit that only impresses people who've never actually studied history or religion seriously.

This whole argument is what happens when someone learns just enough to sound smart to other ignorant people, but not enough to realize how much they don't know.
It's Dunning-Kruger effect in written form.

Nonetheless, God bless.
​

Spoiler: Tag

@Carbine​

Based asf. Doing God‘s work brother.

 

[holy]

Based asf. Doing God‘s work brother.

 

[Quachil]

I will not take seriously the arguments posed by a man who wrote such things in a suicide note, especially since he didn't cite a single credible source.

I feel bad for the dude who roped but I'm also going to be skeptical of shit written by turbo doomers.

 

[Patrick Star]

 

[Deleted member 43881]

"ROMAN RAPE THEORY" (A.K.A BULLSHIT!!!!!)


This theory is such a historically bankrupt argument it's actually painful to read.

This whole theory is based on such weak historical methodology it wouldn't pass a freshman history class.

So, here's why this is complete bullshit:

First, you're using Crossan's SPECULATION about general Roman military behavior to make a specific historical claim.


Are you fucking kidding me?

That's like saying,
"Vikings sometimes raided England, therefore your specific English ancestor from 800 AD was definitely killed by Vikings."
It's historically illiterate reasoning.


The whole Panthera thing
To be honet, this just shows such a basic misunderstanding of ancient sources it's fucking hilarious yet embarrassing.
The "son of Panthera" claim comes from the Talmud, written centuries after Jesus, and it's clearly a polemical corruption of "parthenos" (virgin).
It's like when kids make fun of someone's name. It's mockery, not history.
Jewish critics were making a pun to mock Christian claims, not preserving some secret historical truth.


Tombstone in Germany
Holy shit, the reaching here is Olympic-level.
You found a guy named Panthera who was a Roman soldier, so OBVIOUSLY he must be Jesus's father?
...No.
There were thousands of Roman soldiers named Panthera. It's like finding a guy named John Smith in 1940s New York and claiming he MUST be the grandfather of some random modern John Smith.
That's not how historical evidence works.


But here's where this theory completely falls apart:
If Jesus was really the product of a Roman rape, it would have been THE killer argument for Jesus's opponents.
Think about it: In a deeply honor-shame culture, where genealogy was everything, this would have been the nuclear option.
Yet, in all the ancient attacks on Christianity, even from its harshest critics, this claim only appears centuries later as an obvious polemical response to Christian claims about virgin birth.

The early opponents of Christianity accused Jesus of EVERYTHING they could think of
(being a magician, breaking the Sabbath, threatening the Temple)
but this rape claim is conspicuously absent from all early sources.
Why? Because it's like claiming you have dirt on a politician but waiting 200 years to use it.
It makes no historical sense.

So far, you've based your argument on:
- Speculation presented as fact
- Misuse of general historical conditions to make specific claims
- Misunderstanding of ancient polemical literature
- Coincidental evidence stretched beyond breaking point
- Complete ignorance of how historical methodology works

I'll move on.


Pseudo-intellectual's Attempt At Psychoanalyzing Jesus Through Social Outcast Theory (A.K.A, MORE BULLSHIT!!!!!)

Holy shit, this is where it gets even dumber.

What a fucking genius you are for trying to connect Greek pharmakos traditions, Jewish scapegoat rituals, and... rhesus macaque behavior?

AGAIN, are you kidding me?

This is like trying to explain modern American politics by comparing it to both ancient Mesopotamian temple rituals and how penguins choose their mates.
It's such a methodologically incoherent mess it's actually impressive.

Let me go through it, piece by piece:

1. The pharmakos comparison is complete bullshit because it ignores BASIC HISTORICAL FACTS about Jesus's actual social position.

We know Jesus:

- Had disciples (both male and female)
- Was invited to dinner by social elites
- Had wealthy supporters
- Led a significant movement
- Was considered threatening enough for political execution

Does this sound like a fucking social outcast to you?
This wasn't some lonely kid getting beaten up in the streets - he was leading a movement that scared the SHIT out of both religious and political authorities.


2. The "Jewish scapegoat" argument shows such PROFOUND gnorance of Second Temple Judaism it's actually painful.

Jews weren't running around looking for human scapegoats.
They had an established ritual system.

You're basically saying
"Jews had a goat ritual, therefore they must have treated Jesus like a goat!"

That's fucking fan fiction.
Not historical analysis


3. And then you, being the absolute genius you are, brings in rhesus macaques because... why exactly?
Oh right, because if monkeys do something, humans must do exactly the same thing in exactly the same way!

Fucking brilliant.

Let's just ignore all of human culture, society, and religious complexity because some monkeys pick on each other.


4. The "would have been defenseless in that patriarchal world" claim is such obvious bullshit it hurts.

Jesus was:

- Part of an extended family network (had brothers, sisters, cousins)
- From a skilled trade background (carpentry)
- Literate enough to read Torah in synagogue
- Well-versed in Jewish law and tradition

You knew all of these and just decided this was just some helpless orphan.
Dude, this was someone embedded in community networks with marketable skills and religious education.




The whole argument is based on this weird fantasy of Jesus as some bullied outcast, when every historical source we have shows him as a charismatic leader who could draw crowds, challenge authorities, and build a movement that survived his death.

But here's the thing:
This whole theory requires us to believe that a supposedly traumatized, socially rejected outcast somehow:

- Developed sophisticated theological arguments
- Created innovative ethical teachings
- Built a movement that attracted both poor and wealthy followers
- Challenged both religious and political authorities
- Inspired such loyalty that people died for his message
- Founded a movement that survived brutal persecution


Yeah, totally sounds like the profile of a bullied social reject who never recovered from childhood trauma.

On a serious note, this isn't historical analysis.
You're trying to retcon Jesus's entire life to fit your edgy narrative while showing you don't understand:

- Second Temple Judaism
- Ancient Mediterranean society
- Historical methodology
- Basic human psychology
- How social movements work

You threw together random concepts from sociology, primatology, and pop psychology, sprinkled in some half-understood ancient history, and called it an argument. It's the kind of pseudo-intellectual bullshit that only impresses people who've never actually studied history or religion seriously.

This whole argument is what happens when someone learns just enough to sound smart to other ignorant people, but not enough to realize how much they don't know.
It's Dunning-Kruger effect in written form.

Nonetheless, God bless.
​

Spoiler: Tag

@Carbine​

You misunderstood the point.

The concept of Mary being raped by a roman solider is what happened if Jesus isn't the son of God and isn't the son of Joseph. This is the consequences of that. The reason this wasn't (widely) used as criticism is b/c there isn't a hard proof of this happening over Jesus being the son of God. It is a speculation, but it's not the point made here. The point is that the morality of Jesus is the same morality as if Jesus is the son of Panthera.

- Developed sophisticated theological arguments
- Built a movement that attracted both poor and wealthy followers
- Challenged both religious and political authorities
- Inspired such loyalty that people died for his message
- Founded a movement that survived brutal persecution

Jesus never developed any sophisticated arguments past that of being a peasant rape baby.

Contemporary Jesus never was popular among elite. The instances of Jesus dining among elite were not casual and not friendly. Jesus dined with peasants.

 

[Avertion]

An excerpt from Mitchell Heismans suicide note:

SUPERNATURAL RAPIST

Jesus of Nazareth, or, How a Half-Gentile Outsider Became a Jewish Insider, Turning Jewish Values Outside In

Revolts broke out all over Roman occupied Israel in 4 BCE. A rebel in the Galilean town of Sepphoris named Judas, recounted Josephus in The Jewish War, broke open the royal arsenals, and, having armed his companions, attacked the other aspirants to power...Varus at once sent a detachment of his army into the region of Galilee adjoining Ptolemais, under the command of his friend Gaius; the latter routed all who opposed him, captured and burned the city of Sepphoris and reduced its inhabitants to slavery.

It had taken the employment of three of the four existing legions of Varus, the Roman governor of Syria, before the rebellions were broken.
The little village of Nazareth was about four miles from Sepphoris. Is it reasonable to presume that Nazareth suffered a similar rampage of Roman devastation?

According John Dominic Crossan, a foremost scholar of the historical Jesus:

In Nazareth around the time Jesus was born, men, women, and children who did not hide successfully would have been, respectively, killed, raped, and enslaved. Those who survived would have lost everything.

speculated that Jesus would have grown up in a Nazareth dominated by stories about "the year the Romans . He also pointed out that this year, 4 BCE, was, best we can reconstruct the date", the year that Jesus was born. 157 This means that Jesus was born, as if by an insane coincidence, around the very same time that the Romans devastated, plundered, and raped the area where Jesus was

"Did Jesus have a human father, or was his mother a virgin at the time of his birth?", inquired evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. "Whether or not there is enough surviving evidence to decide it, this is still a strictly scientific question with a definite answer in principle: yes or no." 158 When the evidence for the confluence of the time and place of the Roman attack and Jesus's birth are put together, it appears highly probable that Mary, Jesus's Jewish mother, was raped by a Roman soldier. This means that Jesus himself was very probably the product of the coercive violence of war.


If so, then Jesus was not the "son of God", but the son of a Roman rapist.


This was no ordinary birth. Jesus, more than almost anyone else, was "born of sin". If so, it also highly probable
that Jesus knew, on some level, that he was born of rape, and thus, "born of sin" Beyond normal, natural, or traditional conceptions, Jesus's birth was truly extraordinary.

Yet far from being a shiny new twenty-first century idea, the notion that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier goes back to the very earliest history of Christianity. While copies of the 2nd century Greco-Roman philosopher Celsus's book, On the True Doctrine, may have been destroyed by the early Church, his basic anti-Christian arguments were preserved in the form of a rebuttal by the Christian apologist Origen.

The following excerpt presents Celsus as an attorney prosecuting Jesus, his witness. This form is remarkable in that the philosopher demands reason and evidence of Jesus, not unquestioned faith in Jesus's claims:

Is it not true, good sir, that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumors about the true and unsavory circumstances of your origins? Is it not the case that far from being born in royal David's city of Bethlehem, you were born in a poor country town, and of a woman who earned her living by spinning? Is it not the case that when her deceit was discovered, to wit, that she was pregnant by a Roman soldier named Panthera she was driven away by her husband - the carpenter - and convicted of adultery?15%

Did Jesus's mother Mary have the reputation of being a whore? The Greek word for virgin is parthenos, and it is possible that the legionary name Panthera ("the Panther") was derived, sarcastically, from this Greek word, 16 Less likely, but possible, is that the identity of Jesus' father was uncovered in 1859 when an old Roman tombstone was discovered in Bingerbrück, Germany. The Roman archer Tiberius lulius Abdes Pantera (c. 22 BCE-CE 40) would have been about 18 years old at the time of Jesus's birth. The
Cohor I Sagittariorum that he served under was stationed in Judea at that time.

As significant as the preceding evidence is, the greater evidence for his extraordinary half-Jewish birth concerns the nature of Jesus's ethical innovations within Judaism. Jesus comes across as man in conflict with the laws of Moses. By defying the law, he, by definition, would have been someone on the fringes of Jewish society. There was something about him, something different that compelled him over the social edge even beyond the caustic Jewish prophets of old. What was it about him that made him a marginal Jew among the Jews?

In ancient Greece, a pharmakos was typically an ugly, deformed outcast, such as a cripple, a beggar, or a criminal.

The Greeks had the pharmakos stoned, beaten, and probably killed as an act of communal catharsis. It was a purification of the community through sacrifice. This scapegoat-like ritual typically occurred in times of crisis, i.e. defeat in war. It was an expunging of evil.

The literal "scapegoat" ritual was a product of ancient Judaism. It involved driving a goat out of the community and into the wilderness on Yom Kippur, but its psychosocial function was similar to that of the pharmakos: to project all of the impurities or sins of the community on a despised object and cast it out of the community.

To get a sense of just how "universal" the scapegoat phenomenon is, consider the following excerpt from a comparative study of humans and our primate relatives, rhesus macaques. Among these monkeys, the scapegoat is typically someone who ranks lower than both the victim and the aggressor and who has no chance of getting help from anyone else...in other words, a loser...all the rhesus macaques in a group, except the monkey at the
bottom of the hierarchy, have a favorite scapegoat, and whenever they are attacked, they will immediately look for their favorite scapegoat, even if he or she is not in the vicinity of the fight.

In this way, aggression directed towards the victim can be redirected towards the scapegoat; the "loser".

Within the larger world of Jesus's experience, the great aggressor was Rome and the great victim was ancient Israel.

And the scapegoat? The Romans killed the men, raped the women, and enslaved the children of the Jesus's Jewish hometown - but many survived. Was Jesus made a scapegoat in his lower class Jewish community? Was young Jesus beaten up by the local children on the dirt streets of Nazareth? Was Jesus the loser?

It was the Greeks who ritually excluded a human pharmakos within their own community. Jewish law attempted a higher moral standard by channeling these human instincts towards a scapegoat - a literal goat - instead of a human. Could it be, that during the crisis of the Roman occupation, the defilement of the holy Jewish Temple, and the breakdown of the rule of traditional law, that a minority within the Jewish community began to act like stereotypical gentiles. Did some Jews make Jesus the human pharmakos of the Jewish community?

In the world at large, Rome conquered the Jewish state, violently humiliated its people, and desecrated the laws of Moses. But here, in Jesus, the half-Roman/half-Jew, the tables had been turned. Jews had been victimized by Rome's military rape of Israel - and Jesus was the living embodiment of Rome's violent violation of Israel. If in the larger world, Roman blood granted privileges at the social top, here it would grant demotion to the social bottom.
Did even God hate Jesus? Imagine the young Jesus being beaten up by the older children of his neighborhood. Did they call his mother a whore? Did even other half-Roman products of rape save themselves from hostility by joining the children in making Jesus their favorite scapegoat? Did Jesus cry aloud for a father to save him from the cruel abuses of his world? Jesus, a fatherless orphan, would have been defenseless in that patriarchal world. As someone with "no chance of getting help from anyone else" , he would have been nothing less than an ideal scapegoat in that world.

But if he longed for his true father and tried to picture him in his mind's eye, what could he imagine? How could Jesus imagine his true father except as a ruthless Roman, with a sword at his side, holding his mother down and ripping off her clothes as she screamed and cried for help, penetrating her repeatedly? Did the Roman soldier grab Mary by the neck and slap her across the face as he thrusted inside of her again and again? Did other Romans hold her down while Jesus's father raped his mother? Did the soldiers take turns gang raping his mother Mary?

Biologist Robert Trivers proposed that, under certain conditions, self-deception can be evolutionary adaptive because it helps hide deception from others. Self-deception allows an individual to evade the emotional costs of self-honesty.

@cromagnon @PrinceLuenLeoncur @wishIwasSalludon @Bomber517 @King Solomon

Dnr

 

[mug]

Dnr Christ is King and you know he is coming back you are an agent of satan thats why you hate him so much you fear judgement and hell

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Racist: A term created by the Jevvs in the early 1900's used to oppress the Russian Christians and ethnically cleanse 64 million of them over time. Per the definition that they provide today God himself would be a racist. I am doing my best to live a life like God wants me to have so I take wear being called racist as if it's a badge of honor. Thank you for calling me a racist. In reality this means I am a race realist.

I acknowledge the differences of the races genetically, historically, anatomically, culturally, their fruits etc. I believe all races should have a right to have their own nations to preserve and protect their own heritage, culture and seed line as does Jesus. I do not believe any race of people should oppress, enslave or treat them in an immoral fashion. Jesus said he came only for the lost sheep of Israel but he did help some Goats that believed in him and needed him along the way. I too take this same path as I reach out to the lost sheep but if the Goats ask for help and are not evil to be then I lend them a helping hand. If I am to be killed for my belief in Christ and for my Good deeds then I shall die a martyr. Yes, daily repentance is a part of my daily existence as it should be for all humans.

I rebuke you in the name of Jesus Christ, demon get out of this man's body and return to the abyss from which you came.

When idiots ask me why I am so against protescuckism and why I deem it the heresy of all heresies to put all others to shame, it’s because it allows idiots like you to create your own fictional bullshit headcannon to butcher distort and misinterpret the bible, a book you are not qualified or intelligent enough to truly understand. Go listen to a EO priest he’ll explain all those passages and have you in the right track. Or continue misinterpreting the bible, being a hellbound heretic who follows the devil without even knowing.

Mans advocating for racism wasn’t it Jesus who told the Samaritan that he had come that he was He? Was it not Christ who said he came to lead the sheep (Isreal) first but once done he’ll lead the rest?

This is what it practices and how it is to be interpreted do not twist scripture

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

@holy @PsychoH @Thebuffdon don’t do Protestantism kids, it leads to this shit

 

[holy]

You misunderstood the point.

The concept of Mary being raped by a roman solider is what happened if Jesus isn't the son of God and isn't the son of Joseph. This is the consequences of that. The reason this wasn't (widely) used as criticism is b/c there isn't a hard proof of this happening over Jesus being the son of God. It is a speculation, but it's not the point made here. The point is that the morality of Jesus is the same morality as if Jesus is the son of Panthera.


Jesus never developed any sophisticated arguments past that of being a peasant rape baby.

Contemporary Jesus never was popular among elite. The instances of Jesus dining among elite were not casual and not friendly. Jesus dined with peasants.

Holy shit, this response just proves you have your head so far up your ass you can see your own tonsils.

First, dipshit, you completely miss how historical evidence works.

"If Jesus isn't the son of God or Joseph, then he MUST be a rape baby" is the kind of false dichotomy that would get you laughed out of any serious historical discussion.
There are countless other possibilities - like, you know, Mary having a consensual relationship with literally anyone else? The fact that you, being the genius that you are, jump straight to rape shows you're more interested in edgy shock value than actual historical analysis.

But let's talk about this "Jesus never developed sophisticated arguments" bullshit because holy fuck, this shows such profound ignorance of first-century Judaism it's actually impressive.

Even if you strip away all religious claims and look at Jesus purely as a historical figure, his arguments were sophisticated as fuck for his time:

His interpretation of Torah was innovative enough to piss off religious authorities while still remaining within Jewish theological frameworks.
His parables used complex agricultural and economic metaphors that played with established religious concepts in new ways.
He engaged in sophisticated legal debates about Sabbath observance, ritual purity, and Torah interpretation that show deep knowledge of Jewish law.

This wasn't some "peasant" spouting random wisdom - this was someone who understood the theological and legal frameworks of his time well enough to challenge them effectively.

And this "Jesus was never popular among elite" claim?

ONCE AGAIN, are you fucking kidding me?

Let's look at what the ACTUAL HISTORICAL SOURCES tell us:

- Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin, sought him out for private discussions
- Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy council member, gave him his own tomb
- Multiple wealthy women financially supported his movement
- The fact that both religious and political authorities saw him as threatening enough to execute shows he wasn't just some insignificant peasant

And those dinner instances you dismissed in my last response? In first-century Mediterranean culture, dining was NEVER casual.
It was always a significant social and political act.
The fact that Jesus was invited to these meals AT ALL shows he had social significance.
These weren't fucking Applebee's dinners but important social events that carried political and religious weight.

This response is like watching someone try to debate quantum physics when their entire knowledge of science comes from reading the back of cereal boxes.
You're so confident in your ignorance you don't even realize how much you're exposing your lack of understanding of:

- First-century Jewish theological discourse
- Mediterranean social customs
- How ancient patronage systems worked
- Basic historical methodology
- How social movements actually develop and spread

The fact that you cherry-picked TWO points to respond to while ignoring the mountain of evidence that demolishes your theory shows you're not interested in actual historical analysis.
You're just trying to push your edgy "Jesus was a rape baby" narrative while showing you don't understand shit about the historical period you're talking about.

This isn't just bad history.
Again, it's the kind of shit that only impresses other historically illiterate edgelords who think being provocative is the same as being intelligent.

GOD BLESS, NONETHELESS

​

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Holy shit, this response just proves you have your head so far up your ass you can see your own tonsils.

First, dipshit, you completely miss how historical evidence works.

"If Jesus isn't the son of God or Joseph, then he MUST be a rape baby" is the kind of false dichotomy that would get you laughed out of any serious historical discussion.
There are countless other possibilities - like, you know, Mary having a consensual relationship with literally anyone else? The fact that you, being the genius that you are, jump straight to rape shows you're more interested in edgy shock value than actual historical analysis.

But let's talk about this "Jesus never developed sophisticated arguments" bullshit because holy fuck, this shows such profound ignorance of first-century Judaism it's actually impressive.

Even if you strip away all religious claims and look at Jesus purely as a historical figure, his arguments were sophisticated as fuck for his time:

His interpretation of Torah was innovative enough to piss off religious authorities while still remaining within Jewish theological frameworks.
His parables used complex agricultural and economic metaphors that played with established religious concepts in new ways.
He engaged in sophisticated legal debates about Sabbath observance, ritual purity, and Torah interpretation that show deep knowledge of Jewish law.

This wasn't some "peasant" spouting random wisdom - this was someone who understood the theological and legal frameworks of his time well enough to challenge them effectively.

And this "Jesus was never popular among elite" claim?

ONCE AGAIN, are you fucking kidding me?

Let's look at what the ACTUAL HISTORICAL SOURCES tell us:

- Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin, sought him out for private discussions
- Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy council member, gave him his own tomb
- Multiple wealthy women financially supported his movement
- The fact that both religious and political authorities saw him as threatening enough to execute shows he wasn't just some insignificant peasant

And those dinner instances you dismissed in my last response? In first-century Mediterranean culture, dining was NEVER casual.
It was always a significant social and political act.
The fact that Jesus was invited to these meals AT ALL shows he had social significance.
These weren't fucking Applebee's dinners but important social events that carried political and religious weight.

This response is like watching someone try to debate quantum physics when their entire knowledge of science comes from reading the back of cereal boxes.
You're so confident in your ignorance you don't even realize how much you're exposing your lack of understanding of:

- First-century Jewish theological discourse
- Mediterranean social customs
- How ancient patronage systems worked
- Basic historical methodology
- How social movements actually develop and spread

The fact that you cherry-picked TWO points to respond to while ignoring the mountain of evidence that demolishes your theory shows you're not interested in actual historical analysis.
You're just trying to push your edgy "Jesus was a rape baby" narrative while showing you don't understand shit about the historical period you're talking about.

This isn't just bad history.
Again, it's the kind of shit that only impresses other historically illiterate edgelords who think being provocative is the same as being intelligent.

GOD BLESS, NONETHELESS

​

All he has is baseless assertions.

Typical Gaytheist or pagan or mudslime animals. All those demonic sons of satan can do is try attack Christ. The white man has betrayed us they betrayed Christ I’ll never forgive them for turning their back on Jesus

 

[King Solomon]

When idiots ask me why I am so against protescuckism and why I deem it the heresy of all heresies to put all others to shame, it’s because it allows idiots like you to create your own fictional bullshit headcannon to butcher distort and misinterpret the bible, a book you are not qualified or intelligent enough to truly understand. Go listen to a EO priest he’ll explain all those passages and have you in the right track. Or continue misinterpreting the bible, being a hellbound heretic who follows the devil without even knowing.

Mans advocating for racism wasn’t it Jesus who told the Samaritan that he had come that he was He? Was it not Christ who said he came to lead the sheep (Isreal) first but once done he’ll lead the rest?

This is what it practices and how it is to be interpreted do not twist scripture

You're simply projecting due to your own ignorance, low comprehension levels and jealousy. I forgive you for your sins against me and I shall continue to help this goat due to the kindness of my heart.


So you created this belief and provide 1-2 cherry picked scriptures you took out of context. I've given many entire threads and hundreds of scriptures to substantiate the truth aka reality. I've provided these threads to help heal and provide them with an opportunity to receive salvation for both the sheep and the goats. You disagree with this reality so select to believe in your own gospel and not the gospel of Jesus.

Ignorant take #1: I'm not a protestant or any denomination. You're making strawman arguments and unsubstantiated claims to support your ideology.

Hypocrite take #1: You call me an idiot which isn't something Jesus would do.

Unsubstantiated claim #1: You say I create my own fictional BS to distort/butcher/misinterpret the bible. Furnish this scripture which you believe I misinterpreted and provide me with what you believe is the correct interpretation. If I am to adjust my interpretation I'll need to know what you actually believe is the correct interpretation in your opinion.

Ignorant take #2: You say I'm not qualified to understand the scriptures and to go find an EO priest to explain them to me. My fruits are proof of my advanced understanding of the bible. Reading the bible at this point for me is like reading the newspaper. For you to even suggest a priest means you can't interpret the scriptures yourself and ignorantly believe one needs qualifications to interprets the bible. This is false. You simply require prayer, fasting, consistent reading, testing the different methodologies and use the one that works for you, access to the most accurate bibles (Mt. Sinai, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Matthews Bible (1rst Edition), Strong's concordance and other translation tools.

Ignorant Take #3: Saying I follow the devil without knowing it may be the most ignorant take I've ever seen on this board. I follow the gospel of Jesus and only Jesus. To say otherwise is a direct attack on the teachings of Jesus. You will be judged by Jesus for this sin and I'll pray he forgives you as I have.

God and Jesus does advocate for "racism" per the original definition created by the Edomite Jevvs in the early 1900's. The conversation Jesus had with the Samaritan female doesn't take back anything what Jesus said in that he only came for the lost sheep of Israel and told his apostles to preach to the lost sheep only (exactly qhat they did in Asia minor and Europe) or any of the old testament in which GOD forbids eating fruit of the tree of good and evil or race mixing to create Bastards, etc. Him proclaiming to be the Massiah is fulfillment of old testament prophecy and simply something he restates throughout the gospel.

Ah yes, you proceed to lack basic understanding in John 10 where Jesus says he is the shepherd who will lead and care for his sheep (those who follow him), implying that those who do not follow him will be left behind until later, if they choose to come to him; Sheep are used as a metaphor to mean Israelites or the Chosen people of God. The chapter 304 government controlled indoctrination camps teach this means believers and goats are non believers but this is pure false doctrine and fantasy. There's no context where Sheep mean Israelites and non Israelites as Sheep are metaphor's for Israelites and Jesus is their Shepard which is why GOD the father ensured Jesus came from a female Israelite (100% pureblood like me ).

As you can clearly see, I've illustrated that you're indeed projecting as you're doing precisely what you accuse me of doing in being a bible butcherer, unable to interpret the scriptures and twisting them to fit your ideology.

God, I pray you forgive this person for their sins. Please bless them with the gift of wisdom and allow this person to receive the holy spirit by accepting Jesus as the Massiah. Please take aqay this person's ignorance, arrogance and ego that has blinded him from the truth and the truth shall set him free. In the name of Jesus Christ I pray Amen.