The (((Chosen People)))'s Shenanigans

[Guest]

Very wide of the mark, guestfag. CIAnig went full christcuck before he killed himself.

Saying that Christians are the true chosen people wasn't full christcuck?

We're more so than the murderous Jews.

[Le Redditeur]

You can't simultaneously call the Jews "Christ-murderers" while preaching that Christ was the Kyrie Eleison sacrificed for our sins and that his death was part of God's plan.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that the Romans killed Jesus. Yeah, a couple of rabbi conspired to get rid if him, but again, not only it was supposedly part of God's plan all along, it also involved just a few cronies deprived of their easy shekels.

I swear, the version of this story told in Final Fantasy Tactics makes more sense than whatever the Christians managed to come up from that nonsense.

[Guest]

If what Liar Revealed said is accurate, all the 'Christ killer' shit is revenge for Jews pointing out Jesus did none of the shit he was supposed to

[VoiceOfReasonPast]

Besides, I'm pretty sure that the Romans killed Jesus. Yeah, a couple of rabbi conspired to get rid if him, but again, not only it was supposedly part of God's plan all along, it also involved just a few cronies deprived of their easy shekels.

The problem with Romans is that they are no longer around.

[casual pleb]

Discussing Jesus lore is as gay as discussing some weebshit lore. Everyone has their own version of it and none of it really matters anyways - those who don't agree will always just make up their own fanfic crap and claim that it is the one and only truth.

[Kugelfisch]

All pretty irrelevant, as Jesus never existed in the first place.

[Le Redditeur]

I assume he did exist in some capacity, if nothing else because the biggest advocate for non-historicity of Jesus was Richard "Intellectual Artillery" Carrier, and that fucker has a gift for being wrong all the time.

[Kugelfisch]

I assume he did exist in some capacity, if nothing else because the biggest advocate for non-historicity of Jesus was Richard "Intellectual Artillery" Carrier, and that fucker has a gift for being wrong all the time.

Even in theological studies they admit that there is zero proof or historic record of Jesus. The first person to mention him is his supposed brother a cool 30 years after his unrecorded crucifixion.

The reason not many of them draw the logical conclusion is that it'll get you excommunicated.
Same with St. Paul of which even the most hardcore apologists admit 6 letters are fake, which is a very conservative assessment.
You have to keep in mind that they are all church-employed and often professors of theology or make most of their money with super cheesy, romanticized Bible story books. They have a vested interest in people believing the crap.

[Guest]

You should be skeptical of anything related to the new testament books, particularly the gospels, when people tell you they're, "inspired by God," despite there being proof they've been doctored over the years and them being written by someone only loosely associated with the people they're supposed to be the accounts of.

On top of that, the letters to the churches have always bothered me as being part of the bible. Why do I need to read about someone telling a church with a specific problem how to deal with it? Furthermore, 99% of western churches blatantly ignore the advice in them, anyway, and when you point it out you're treated like a heretic.

[VoiceOfReasonPast]

Why do I need to read about someone telling a church with a specific problem how to deal with it?

They're the Bible's filler arc.