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.