/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6120790]

Why did Paul convert to Christianity?

[Anonymous No.6120800]

To get to the other side.

[Anonymous No.6120804]

probably because it afforded him with an existence in a world where he could atone for his sins (for example mass murder) and be loved by and supported by a god figure once more

[Anonymous No.6120808]

He wanted a means to push his crass misogyny and general nastiness, what a choad.

[Anonymous No.6120814]

>>6120790
He saw Christ

[Anonymous No.6120831]

>>6120804
>>6120808
How would he have heard about Christ?

[Anonymous No.6120835]

probably for money and pussy

[Anonymous No.6120838]

>>6120831
he saw him

[Anonymous No.6120843]

>>6120804
He was already in one. He believed he was doing the right thing

[Anonymous No.6120845]

>>6120831
From a Christian? Homeboy debated a lot of Christians when he was a Pharisee. If you believe what he wrote literally (like a fucking pleb-ass literalist) then he saw Jebus hisself.

[Anonymous No.6120851]

>>6120804
Kek. When Paul was kicking it, there weren't enough Christians to mass murder.

[Anonymous No.6120853]

>>6120835
tight christian pussies

[Anonymous No.6120854]

God's grace.

[Anonymous No.6120859]

>>6120790
He met Jesus.

[Anonymous No.6120868]

>>6120790

[Anonymous No.6120874]

>>6120790
So he could destroy Christianity from the inside.

[Anonymous No.6120875]

>>6120790
well, as you know he first was a prosecutor of christians then he saw god in the destert while travelling an became blind.
afterwards he pretended to be a christian and tried to convince other people of it.
therefore he invented the lie of jesus, to be an all loving, peaceful figure. however jesus wasnt that. he was a fucking zealot and an anarchist.
he was opposed to the materialistic cult judaism was becoming and to the roman empire.
however for romans to believe in christianity the story of jesus as a person had to be changed as they couldnt adhere to someone who was opposed to their state. so paul just said jesus loves everyone including romans, which ofc isnt true bcz he was a fucking anarchist.
so paul was a fucking fraud, end of story
The Empire never ended!!!

[Anonymous No.6120889]

he saw god on the road to damascus
jesus christ people do you even read?

[Anonymous No.6120898]

>>6120874
/ T H R E A D
As regards the status of Christianity after this post: T O T A L L Y R E K T
100 % ebin

CHECKMATE

[Anonymous No.6120901]

>>6120868
Underrated post

[Anonymous No.6120907]

>>6120853
most were whores at the time because it was the money that was tight

[Anonymous No.6120913]

>>6120898

[Anonymous No.6120915]

Christianity is very strange, and not even in the 'lel sky daddy walk on water' kind of shit atheists say. It's just weird how Jesus definitely existed, something was up with his tomb, eyewitness accounts of him, before the religion was cool people were dying for him, an anti-christian (Paul) just became Christian suddenly, this Jesus guy had ethics down to a T even though he was just a poor carpenter, etc.

It almost makes you wanna jump on board just to see how deep this shit goes.

[Anonymous No.6120922]

>>6120898
>>6120845
>le ebin r/atheist
>homeboy
the fuck is wrong with this board

[Anonymous No.6120930]

>>6120915
Yeah I was thinking that but I ended up too lazy and undisciplined to do it. Now I get drunk and shitpost on 4chinz :DDD

[Anonymous No.6120939]

>>6120898
I'm actually a Christian myself... just not a Paulinist.
But yeah, my point stands.

[Anonymous No.6120940]

>>6120915
> this Jesus guy had ethics down to a T even though he was just a poor carpenter
maybe, just maybe, the writers of the bible attribute things to jesus that he didn't actually say

[Anonymous No.6120944]

>>6120922
/pol/, otherwise we could have Marxist utopia tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.6120946]

>>6120915
not to mention that he has teached for only 3 years

[Anonymous No.6120958]

>>6120875
Judaism was always a materialistic cult and you could barely define Jesus as an anarchist, since he said he was the son of God and chose his disciples.

[Anonymous No.6120961]

>>6120939
You do know that Paul is as important as the gospels right?

[Anonymous No.6120966]

>>6120946
His death and resurrection is what made him famous

[Anonymous No.6120970]

>>6120915
>had ethics down to a T
Abandon your family and friends if they don't believe like you do, don't save money or plan at all for the future (since it will end soon anyway), and I came not to bring peace but the sword? wow much ethical

[Anonymous No.6120973]

>>6120970
You didn't understand Jesus at all, lel.

[Anonymous No.6120982]

>>6120970
>"I came not to bring peace but the sword"
>Bad

Welcome to the real world, anon.
This isn't my little pony.

[Anonymous No.6120985]

>>6120973
>>6120982

>ye who has no since shall cast the first stone
>no justice system can ever work

[Anonymous No.6120989]

>>6120985
sin*

[Anonymous No.6121001]

>>6120982
I'm hardly a pacifist, but Jesus isn't saying that in the context of fighting ISIS or something, it's to spread the "truth" against those who disbelieve or Christians don't like (like Rome, which isn't benevolent either). Plus Jesus contradicts himself on this point as well with "turn the other cheek" and "love they neighbor".

[Anonymous No.6121012]

>>6121001
He is talking about a metaphorical sword, not factual violence. But if you didn't understand that much, there's no use in discussing with you.

[Anonymous No.6121038]

I admire Christianity because it affirms the utter necessity of human suffering and pain, but instead of turning yourself away from it like some pussy stoic you're commanded by God to engage with the world despite all the rejection and hardship that Christ assures you will go through
Real Christianity is for hardcore motherfuckers

[Anonymous No.6121080]

>>6121038
>I admire Christianity because it affirms the utter necessity of human suffering and pain, but instead of turning yourself away from it like some pussy stoic you're commanded by God to engage with the world despite all the rejection and hardship that Christ assures you will go through
>Real Christianity is for hardcore motherfuckers

10/10

[Anonymous No.6121092]

>>6121012
Or maybe it's a badly written book excused by centuries of dogmatic sophists working tirelessly to sshore up it's crumbling rhetoric and present it as a transcendent mystical text replete with metaphor and prophecy, as opposed to the inane scrawlings of several generations of inebriated desert nomads.

[Anonymous No.6121142]

>>6120800
KeKd hard m8

[Anonymous No.6121161]

>>6121038
ayy

[Anonymous No.6121242]

>>6121012
Is the peace metaphorical as well?

[Anonymous No.6121245]

>>6121038

I'm legitimately inspired, Anon.

Godspeed.

[Anonymous No.6121453]

>>6121092
>I cannot understand even the most basic metaphores
>It's the fault of the people who wrote it, not me!

[Anonymous No.6121456]

>>6121038
>stoic
>turning away from suffering

[Anonymous No.6121469]

>>6120790
Paul was retroactively Christianized by the Church.

[Anonymous No.6121490]

>>6120901
wololololool

[Anonymous No.6121491]

>>6120915

>lel its just so strange how Christian is the greatest thing ever almos make u wanna convert huh ;))))

Quit this 'subtle' proselytism shit

>>/lit/thread/S6089758#p6090217

[Anonymous No.6121495]

>>6120790

You telling me if Jesus didn't come from the heavens, tell you off for being naughty, and make you blind for 3 days, you wouldn't convert?

[Anonymous No.6121503]

>>6121495
I'd probably think this Jesus person was some kind of demon trying to torment me into joining it's heretical cult.

[Anonymous No.6121514]

>>6120985

I would have been like 'yeaaah I'm pretty good' then thrown the first stone, just to be annoying :)

[Anonymous No.6121516]

>>6121503
>>6121495
Didn't one of the saints say never to trust a vision?

[Anonymous No.6121521]

>>6120961
Only for Pauline heretics.

[Anonymous No.6121523]

>>6120985

also jesu was anti hypocrisy, he basically went round pointing at things 'don't be a dick' 'don't be a dick' 'You there! yes, you, stop being a dick'

[Anonymous No.6121559]

>>6120939
PURGE

[Anonymous No.6121562]

>>6121516

Prove it.

[Anonymous No.6121575]

>>6120970
you're right it's not ethics, it's the kingdom of heaven

[Anonymous No.6121580]

>>6120915
>something was up with his tomb
That is one of the purely mythological pieces of the gospel, there's no way they'd let a treasonous Jew to sit in a nice tomb for days, never mind with Roman guards. Jesus was Jewish Messiah claimant #5672944, Pilate wouldn't have cared at all if he even knew about it, nor would the Sanhedrin.

[Anonymous No.6121585]

>>6121038
LOL, epig. Try reading at least the Echeiridion next time. Or, I don't know, the wiki article at the very least.

[Anonymous No.6121763]

>>6120915

[Anonymous No.6121869]

>>6121516
it says in the bible to test the spirits. paul met with the apostles for 15 days or so i think. i imagine in that time he tested his vision against what they knew.

[Anonymous No.6121887]

>>6120940
There are accounts of Jesus in the dead sea-scrolls, and I mean, like, you can't just lie about transforming food for five thousand people without getting stoned instantly. People weren't idiots two thousand years ago.

[Anonymous No.6121893]

>>6120915
i thought the resurrection of jesus meant that he actually came back from the dead and started walking around and shit, but i read about it and he just appeared to some followers in a vision

what a bunch of bullshit, imo

[Anonymous No.6121911]

>>6121469
>there is neither jew, nor greek etc etc

one of the most abused quotations ever. it's about the universality of christianity, not egalitarianism or identity politics or any other absurd political stance it can be wrenched into approving.

[Anonymous No.6121922]

>>6121893
Thomas didn't believe until he felt the wounds. He wasn't just a spirit.

[Anonymous No.6121941]

daily reminder that paul (and therefore protestant shits) got BTFO by peter

[Anonymous No.6121945]

>>6121491
I bet you think that any time someone posts *tips fedora* in response to an atheist it's 'subtle' proselytism too. Everyone is trying to poison your weak little mind, aren't they?

[Anonymous No.6121964]

>>6121887
There are no accounts of Jesus in the Dead Sea scrolls and the content of such is often used to support Jesus having never existed.

[Anonymous No.6121965]

>>6121911
But it was written before Christianity existed. Paul's message is that the Gentiles can be grafted onto the tree of Israel through faith in Christ

>Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry 14 in order to make my own people jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead! 16 If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; and if the root is holy, then the branches also are holy.
>17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 You will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith.

[Anonymous No.6121978]

>>6120915
>Jesus definitely existed

You know very little about this subject lol

[Anonymous No.6122053]

>>6121941
Peter wasn't Roman

[Anonymous No.6122058]

>>6121978
Damn, those Harvard historians were wrong? Thank for clearing things up :^)

[Anonymous No.6122061]

>>6122058
>Harvard Divinity School historians proved Jesus was an actual organism

[Anonymous No.6122063]

>>6122058
There are no contemporary accounts of anything resembling jesus whatsoever until decades after his death. Josephus is known to have been tampered with by christians, Tacitus just says christians are a cult and doesn't mention jesus. Harvard is in America, no public authority is going to make that claim.

[Anonymous No.6122112]

>>6122063
>>6122061
Yeah, you're right. It's an international conspiracy, they've even bribed those atheist professors to agree with them.

Why couldn't I see it? 4chan outclasses top tier historians.

[Anonymous No.6122123]

>>6122063
This is my first day on /lit/ is this a meme? Please don't tell me this board is so unscholarly....

[Anonymous No.6122127]

>>6121038
That's Islam.
Christianity tells you to turn the other cheek and hope for the afterlife.
Or lock yourself in a monastery.

[Anonymous No.6122143]

>>6121038
Stoicism teaches amor fati, it's Epicureanism that teaches turning away from suffering.

[Anonymous No.6122162]

>>6122063
>no public authority is going to make that claim
You're a fool. Oxford historians would agree just as easily.

How stupid do you have to be to project your fear of a deity onto history? It's almost is if you idiots believe that Jesus' very existence necessitates belief in his divinity.

[Anonymous No.6122178]

>>6122123
I like to see you refute any of it, you literally can't.

[Anonymous No.6122194]

>>6122162
>ertain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.[20][21]

Hmmmm. Also the uncomfortable fact that everything I posted is fact.

[Anonymous No.6122211]

>>6122063
>no contemporary accounts of anything resembling jesus whatsoever until decades after his death

This is not a very strong argument because most surviving Roman and Greek histories describe events decades or centuries earlier, and it's not as if they had newspapers.

[Anonymous No.6122225]

>>6120790
to get his sight back

[Anonymous No.6122232]

>>6120874
Paul confirmed for agent of Satan.

[Anonymous No.6122239]

>>6122211
Yeah well it is considering he's the magic son of the first mover and doer of the only apprently-allowed-to-be-believed-in-with-0-credible-evidence in verifiable and concensus approved history. It's kind of a larger calibur than a tampered roman civil servants records and the mention of a quaint cult we know viciously adapted local, alcohol holidays like "christmas" for insidious prosytelization.

[Anonymous No.6122241]

>>6122239
I forgot the word miracles in that hyphenation menagerie because I'm at the bar but idgaf prove any of it wrong, for that matter prove you aren't faggots.

[Anonymous No.6122243]

>>6120874
>>6122232

[Anonymous No.6122276]

>>6120875
yes... good...

[Anonymous No.6122300]

>>6122239
Did you ever entertain the possibility that Jesus existed but he didn't perform miracles?

[Anonymous No.6122306]

>>6122300
I only entertain facts.

[Anonymous No.6122312]

>>6122300
Did you ever entertain he's commonly conceded to not even have been colled jesus not have any non-biblical contemporary accounts? You're just deflecting. You just can't counter anything I have posted, and are frustrated that the issue isn't as cut-and-dry, cleanly wrapped up as you were told.

[Anonymous No.6122335]

>>6122194
>certain historians
kek, certain physicists believe shit, shall we take their word for it as well? Sounds to me like you're cherrypicking cunt

[Anonymous No.6122337]

>>6122312
>he's commonly conceded to not even have been colled [sic] jesus

And Caligula's real name was Gaius Julius, but we use another name for the sake of convenience.

>not have any non-biblical contemporary accounts

I already pointed out that this is a red herring considering the lack of 'contemporary accounts' for anyone in antiquity. If this statement is implying that the biblical accounts of Jesus are contemporary then this is also wrong since every serious hypothesis has the gospels written after 70 AD (at earliest).

Non-Christian historians who accept the existence of Jesus do so because it is the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.6122342]

>>6120875
So why did the other apostles and early Christians accept Paul then?

[Anonymous No.6122389]

>>6122211
>This is not a very strong argument because most surviving Roman and Greek histories describe events decades or centuries earlier

Yeah lets just handwave all those significant works by Thucydides, Polybius and Livy's work on Augustus.

Why is there a suspicious silence by major contemporaries and writers from Jesus time who would have been keen to write about him and the events mentioned?

Why didnt Senneca the younger, Gallio, Justus of Tiberias or Philo of Alexandria all contemporaries and quite connected with this area all be silent on such a monumental and connected events?

[Anonymous No.6122405]

>>6122337
You didn't say anything substantial, at all. The most you have done is concede that historically no one rocked the boat. This is no longer the case.

[Anonymous No.6122442]

>>6122405
Lol, you're obviously just leaning on a vocal minority of historians because you've a vested interest in this.

You could literally side with a minority on any issue. Tell me do you go around doubting the existence of other figures? No, you just think because of this air of "religion" around Christ that you're suddenly smart enough to interpret historical texts. Enjoy your euphoria

topcuck

[Anonymous No.6122446]

>>6122389
>Why is there a suspicious silence by major contemporaries and writers from Jesus time who would have been keen to write about him and the events mentioned?
>Why didnt Senneca the younger, Gallio, Justus of Tiberias or Philo of Alexandria all contemporaries and quite connected with this area all be silent on such a monumental and connected events?

Maybe, just maybe, the gospel accounts of Jesus' mission are exaggerated? And so there was no reason for Senneca [sic] the Younger, Gallio (from whom we have no writings anyway), Justus (ditto), or Philo (whose concerns were religion and philosophy, not history) to write about an obscure Jewish rabble-rouser?

I really cannot understand the argument where people take gospel accounts of miracles and say 'If Jesus existed, why did no-one write about the thousands of fish?'

[Anonymous No.6122463]

>>6122442
Everyone has to draw upon the same primary sources. Someone of this significance having 0 contemporary accounts of such a life is ludicrous.

[Anonymous No.6122467]

>>6122446
Because he is a parable for tinfoilers of his time. It would be like calling /x/ and /pol/ "david ickeians"

[Anonymous No.6122489]

>>6122446
>Maybe, just maybe, the gospel accounts of Jesus' mission are exaggerated?

Its not just the events of Jesus life but the various historical events the bible alludes to being missed out.

>there was no reason for Senneca [sic] the Younger,

Actually there is, firstly he wrote about curious natural phenomena yet misses out on the star of bethlemem and the earthquakes that came with the resurrection.

Most importantly he wrote a book (On superstition) that dealt with the known religions and sects of the time which deals directly with this area. Even Augustine found this omission problematic.

>Gallio (from whom we have no writings anyway

The man was sennecas brother, dont you think its a tad odd he never mentioned Paul or the Christians or even this trial to his brother who was writing on the matter?

>Justus (ditto)

The Patriarch of Constantinople (Photius) specially commented on about his dismay on the fact this the history books written by Justus made no mention of Jesus at all.

>Philo (whose concerns were religion and philosophy, not history)

Yes because Jesus was not relevant to religion or philosophy....

>I really cannot understand the argument where people take gospel accounts of miracles and say 'If Jesus existed, why did no-one write about the thousands of fish?'

No one is saying that and you are being facetious if you think its comparable to compare the lack of historical commentary on Jesus ethics, religion and surrounding facts (like the universal tax or his ministries growth and movement) to reports of his miracles.

[Anonymous No.6122502]

>>6122489
>Actually there is, firstly he wrote about curious natural phenomena yet misses out on the star of bethlemem and the earthquakes that came with the resurrection.

But what would lead you to believe those events ever actually happened?

All your 1st century figures who 'should have' written about Jesus but didn't, suggest that knowledge of Jesus and his followers was not widespread before the 2nd century. Which explains why Pliny needed to ask Trajan how to deal with Christians and Josephus has nothing to say about Jerusalem Christians during the war.

[Anonymous No.6122525]

>4 individual accounts that don't even fit together all that well to form some vast conspiracy
>waaah Jesus didn't exist

Jesus is one of the most established figures in the ancient world
The existence of Socrates is much more suspicious, for instance

[Anonymous No.6122535]

>>6122525
Funny you should say that, there are more contemporary accounts for Socrates than there are for Jesus.

[Anonymous No.6122538]

>>6121521
Is there anything else you cherry pick?

[Anonymous No.6122544]

>>6121092
They weren't even nomads and go back to fucking /sci/

[Anonymous No.6122546]

>>6122525
>3 connonizer accounts based on Mark, excluding any apocryphals and any of the facts recently discussed ITT
Kek

[Anonymous No.6122547]

>>6122525
well to be fair, Matthew and Luke are just copies of Mark with some new material

[Anonymous No.6122554]

>>6121964
There is no Jesus in Gnostic gospels?

[Anonymous No.6122557]

>>6122502
>But what would lead you to believe those events ever actually happened?

The point is it throws serious questions about the divine inspiration and the truth of the bible which has some serious theological implications.

>All your 1st century figures who 'should have' written about Jesus but didn't, suggest that knowledge of Jesus and his followers was not widespread before the 2nd century

These people specifically set out to enquire into these events and in Gallio case was even closey connected with one the most important disciples likewise the claims made by the bible regarding the entry into Jerusalem and the number and magnitude of sermons make it clear that he wasnt a nobody. All of which combines to illustrate that the new testament is poor in history and accordingly theology. There may have been a jesus but he was certainly not the figure of the new testament.

[Anonymous No.6122559]

Protip: Any and all Catholics are not saved and will burn in Hell for all eternity.

[Anonymous No.6122570]

>>6120790
Because he was a kṣatriya, and at that point Catholic Church (read the Christian world) needed a well educated kṣatriya, because it was already full of naive brahmans

[Anonymous No.6122572]

>>6122557
>The point is it throws serious questions about the divine inspiration and the truth of the bible which has some serious theological implications.
Literally no one is arguing this, we're talking about Jesus as a man. kek even if there were accounts of walking on water, it wouldn't make me any more or less likely to believe. Fucking autistic cuck stop trying to save your chancred and contribute to the discussion fucking cunt cuckold prick tip top kek

[Anonymous No.6122577]

>>6122570
no, Evola. Learn the actual names.

[Anonymous No.6122579]

>>6122525
>>6122546
>>6122547
>Matthew and Luke are just copies of Mark with some new material

Markan priority is just one theory among many and 'Q's existence has been proposed, not demonstrated.

>>6122557
>There may have been a jesus but he was certainly not the figure of the new testament.

Which is what I have been arguing all along.

[Anonymous No.6122580]

>>6122535
And those accounts represent a radically different person. Good luck reconciling those bro.

[Anonymous No.6122585]

>>6120800

[Anonymous No.6122592]

>>6122572
>Literally no one is arguing this, we're talking about Jesus as a man.

Read the post again that's is exactly what I am doing.

See

>There may have been a jesus but he was certainly not the figure of the new testament.

Given that our understanding of Jesus as a man is entirely reliant on a highly questionable (as demonstrated by the above posts)source there is good reason to believe that the figure of Jesus as described did not exist.

[Anonymous No.6122595]

>>6122580
They are still more consistent that the biblical accounts for Jesus though.

[Anonymous No.6122600]

>>6122579
its agreed y literally every scholar and historian that whoever wrote Matthew and Luke used Mark as a base, there just isn't really any other explanation.

Not that its the only evidence, Paul talks about him a lot and the fact that Christianity exists is evidence it leads back to somebody

[Anonymous No.6122607]

>>6122592
Yes, and you of all people would know better than the historians and we should all agree that he didn't exist, fuck off cuck you just move around in obvious circle and present fallacies as logical movements, gtfo fucking cuntass cuck

[Anonymous No.6122611]

>>6120868

[Anonymous No.6122619]

>>6122607
You have absolutely nothing to say because you're realizing how utterly ignorant you are regarding this topic. It's okay /pol/, just go away.

[Anonymous No.6122620]

>>6122607
So in response to my "obvious circle which present fallacies as logical movements" your response is that I shouldnt question the argument because historians say he exists?

Truly you possess a superior grasp of the matter than myself.

[Anonymous No.6122660]

>>6122554
You're thinking of the Nag Hammadi library.

[Anonymous No.6122667]

>>6122276
Are you saying PKD is a tumor, or is that PKD's damaged and diseased pancreas?

[Anonymous No.6122840]

>>6122620
>>6122619
>I know better than historians
>I've discovered something historians haven't
lol nice try

[Anonymous No.6122897]

>>6122840
>Still cant provide a response

[Anonymous No.6123079]

>>6120838
No he didn't.

[Anonymous No.6123106]

>mfw we can't have a quality discussion about dead Jew worship b/c some fedoracuck has to come in and say "lol he didn't even real. Absence of evidence means evidence of absence, right?"

[Anonymous No.6123452]

>>6120790
whats with the unicorn hairdo. beard is nice

[Anonymous No.6123526]

>>6122063
>Josephus is known to have been tampered with by christians
Only a portion of it. The James passage is definitely authentic even if the Testimonium is at least heavily added upon. We have the documents of the early Christians that were taught by the disciples of Jesus. James really did head the Jerusalem Church just after Jesus died and the Christians have existed since then. Where do you think they came from?

[Anonymous No.6123546]

If Jesus didn't actually exist then what did Mark set up the Coptic church for?

[Anonymous No.6123553]

>>6120790
He was blinded by the light.

[Anonymous No.6123577]

>>6123526
no noooo! Christians wer ecreated by da jooos in 300AD to destroy the Roman Empire!

[Anonymous No.6123597]

>>6123452
He was in a Krishnacore punk band before he became a Christian.

[Anonymous No.6123633]

>there are people on /lit/ who are legitimately Christian and not even trolling
this is the problem with an international website, you don't get this shit in europe

[Anonymous No.6123741]

>>6120800
/thread

[Anonymous No.6124125]

There are actually some theories that he was sent by Rome to defuse the new ideology by making it more pacifist.