#TW The Bible

[chronivore]

[cardinalhope]

               Once upon a time you imagine yourself to be a sacrifice to let and be known the powers of the titan , time and time again a golden guard is picked from the litter of eligibility , and you were the lucky - now your fate was changed , and no more a lamb to the slaughter , or so you thought . They hunt you down as though a rabbit in spring , and when you refuse to die , they try again - how many times had it been now , you can’t remember the exact number , but your mind is mulling over the story of the flogging of Christ , thirty nine lashes were imbedded into his skin , if he died at forty it would be murder , thirty nine was the most they could do without it turning illegal - and in a way you imagine yourself in place of the thorny crown , and misery trodden man , begging for it to STOP . But never being heard . 

                   You’re only a child , but so many dared and begged for the gilded wings that were clipped at a young age - they see the life of pleasantries , but they don’t see what happens behind closed doors , or how blood is rolling down your face in this moment from one of these secret exchanges that almost met you with death , barely given a chance to recover - a chance to piece together what had happened you are met with the face of god . 

“I told you to stay put. I told you not to put yourself in danger. Do you understand now what I meant? There are people out there who mean you harm, Hunter. See how I’ve sheltered you from having to go through this. How could you do this to me?” / @sigilcorrupt​

        you hear the words of the apostle , bowing before him as best as you could even as blood slips down your nose and drips to a tiled flooring. The shame is unbearable , you wonder now if maybe you should’ve let the intruder kill you to spare you the verbal scorn of your forefather. But he’s so angry - and he’s RIGHT . Your defiance has left him almost at the loss of his last remaining family - in makes your stomach twist at the idea of Belos being alone , abandoned by all he knows .

            “ I am sorry, sir . I didn’t mean for this to happen, I just wished to aid the search .. You look so stressed and I just wanted to help ... Now I realize where my follies lie and the pain my insubordination has caused. Forgive me . I never meant to cause you any anguish . I just wished to help . ” 

[wayward-delver]

Beastkin Lore and Trans-Coded Werewolf compilation cause I am too impatient to wait for the anime.

Also, Laios being Laios called out for it.

[pyrose-the-flame]

Y'all ever think about the accidental implications of the fruit of knowledge in the garden of eden being portrayed as an apple, given that apples are a human invention via centuries of selective breeding (human controlled evolution)

[j0celynh0rr0r]

Bloody tears

[divineandmajesticinone]

4 MINUTES (2024) I 1.02 "It's pretty deep. All the doctors in the ER are busy. I'll stitch it up for you."

[lostanddeadmedia]

The Q Gospel Part II

So since I hit the character limit in the last part, this is Part II of whatever. All trigger/content warnings that may apply still apply, this is Dead Dove, Do Not Eat territory. Picks up from where I left off under the cut (it's there as a courtesy, I don't want to trigger anyone).

"The common material in Q and Mark (cf. Mark 1:2; 1:7-8; 1:12-13; 3:22-26, 27-29; 4:21, 22, 24, 25: 4:30-32; 6:7-13; 8:11, 12; 8:34-35; 8:38; 9:37, 40, 42, 50; 10:10-11; 10:31; 11:22-23; 12:37b-40; 13:9, 11, 33-37) has repeatedlyled to the hypothesis of a literary dependence of Mark on Q. But if Mark had known Q, his criteria for selecting the material he used, and especially the sayings he omitted, cannot be explained. The reasons given remain hypothetical (Mark as a supplement to the sayings source, Q as a supplement to Mark, a critical debate by Mark with the Christology of the sayings source), and fail to make plausible the considerable differences in the literary configuration and theological orientation between Q and Mark. A direct literary connection between Mark and Q must be regarded as improbable. The text complexes they share point rather to independent access of each to old Jesus traditions, but contacts between the two streams of tradition at the pre-redactional level are not to be excluded." -Udo Schenelle commenting on the relationship between Q and Mark (op. cit. p. 195)

"A much discussed feature of Q arises out of Q's version of the mission charge. Here the Q missionaries are told to take absolutely nothing for their journey, not even the basic necessities of life such as food or clothing. Elsewhere, too, Q sayings seem to presuppose an extremely radical break with past personal ties. The Q Christians are told that they must 'hate' their own families (Luke 12:46); they are told that they must take up their cross (Luke 14:27). They are not to worry about their daily needs (Luke 12:22-34) since God will provide for them. They are to be followers of the Son of Man, who has nowhere to lay his head; and they are to break with their past in such a radical way that they are not even to go home to bury a member of their own family (Luke 9:57-60). These saying have led to the plausible theory that behind Q lies a group of Christians who obeyed these instructions to the letter. Hence Q presupposes the existence of wandering prophets or charismatics who made a radical break with their own homes and went about preaching the message of the kingdom (Hoffman 1972; Theissen 1979). However, the presence of sayings like 10:2 may suggest that the final stage of Q also presupposes a group of settled Christians providing backup support for the wandering preachers (Zeller 1982, 1984)." -C. M. Tuckett's observations (op. cit., pp. 570-571)

"J. S. Kloppenborg proposes to explain the origins of Q in terms of a three-stratum model. In his view the oldest layer of Q was composed of 'wisdom speeches', including the nuclear elements of the Sermon on the Plain/Mount and the Missions Discourse, as well as Luke 11:2-4, 9-13 Q; Luke 12:2-12, 22-34 Q; Luke 13:24-14:35 Q; and others. At a later stage this complex was combined with, and partially reshaped by, materials that treat the proclamation of judgement against Israel (preaching of the Baptist, the nobleman of Capernaum, the Baptist's question, the Beelzebul controversy, the demand for signs, the Q apocalypse). The third and final stratum was provided by the temptation story, which presents Jesus as a model for one's relationship to God." _Udo Schnelle summarising the stratification proposed by Kloppenborg (op. cit., pp. 188-189)

"The original version of Q must have included wisdom sayings as well as eschatological sayings. It cannot be argued that Q orignally presented Jesus as a teacher of wisdom without an eschatological message. The close relationships of the Gospel of Thomas to Q cannot be accidental. Since the typical Son of Man sayings and announcements of judgements which are characteristic of the redaction of Q are never paralleled in the Gospel of Thomas, it is evident that its author had no knowledge fo the final version of Q, nor of the secondary apocalyptic interpretation that the redactor of Q superimposed upon earlier eschatological sayings. The Gospel of Thomas is either dependent upon Q's earlier version or upon clusters of sayings employed in its composition." -Helmut Koester (op. cit., p. 150)

"For the followers of Jesus whose tradition is represented in the original composition of Q, the turning point of the ages is the proclamation of Jesus. In the sayings of Jesus, his followers find the continuation of this announcement. These sayings are not only reassurance of the eschatological moment, they are also the rule of life for the community of the new age insofar as Jesus continues to speak in sayings of wisdom and in rules for the community. Jesus may indeed have been viewed as the heavenly wisdom. This is especially evident in Q 10:21-22 which defines the relationship of Jesus to the Father in terms of the established sapiental concept of Wisdom and God. If Q 13:34-35, the lament over Jerusalem, should belong to the original composition of Q, Jesus is also the one who sends Wisdom's envoys.

Just as the departure of Wisdom or of her envoy does not constitute a change in the urgency of the message, so too Jesus' death would not be seen as a crisis of his proclamation. The disciples are already called to follow in the steps of Jesus, in their discipleship (Q 9:57-62) as well as in their task to carry on his proclamation (Q 10:2-12). Jesus' departure would make this call even more urgent. The ages have already begun to turn through Jesus' announcement. Any emphasis on Jesus' suffering, death, and resurrection would be meaningless in this context. Thus Q can not be seen as a teaching supplement for a community whose theology is represented by the Pauline kerygma. Q's theology and soteriology are fundamentally different." - Helmut Koester (op. cit., p. 159)

"On the other hand, the Synoptic Sayings Source is an important piece of evidence for the continuation of a theology of followers of Jesus that had no relationship to the kerygma of the cross and resurrection. It is evident now that this was not an isolated phenomenon. The opponents of Paul in 1 Corinthians 1-4, the Gospel of Thomas, the Dialogue of the Savior, and the opponents of the Gospel of John in the Johannine community all shared this understanding of the significance of Jesus' coming." -Helmut Koester (op. cit., p. 165)

"Recent studies have shown how fruitful a redaction-critical approach to Q can be. At first sight such work may appear to be extremely hypothetical, being based on what some would argue is a very questionable presupposition (the very existence of Q as a single document). However, the very distinctiveness of the Q material as shown by the recent redaction-critical studies of Q is in itself an indication that this material did exist as a separate entity at some stage in development of the synoptic tradition. Theories about the theology of Q, if successful, may therefore provide support for the hypothesis of the existence of Q. Q may also alert us to the great variety within primitive Christianity. It shows us a version of the Christian faith which perhaps less cross centered than, say, Paul or Mark; but is nonetheless real for that." -C. M. Tuckett (op. cit., p. 571)

Mark and Q

Explanation 1: Q was a book of sayings and teachings attributed to Jesus.

Counteracts the reliance on actual events that Mark had.

Explains why Matthew and Luke's writings are so similar (like students copying from a primary source.

Example:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." - Matthew 7:1-2

"Judge not and ye shall not be judged: condemn not and ye shall not be condemned: forgive and ye shall be forgiven." -Luke 6:37

The explanation is seen as problematic due to surviving proto-Gospel works sharing little with Matthew and Luke.

Matthew and Luke

Explanation 2: Matthew and Luke copied from each-other, much like students cheating on a test.

This theory is seemingly supported by the fact that the book of Mark was used as a source for the books of Matthew and Luke.

Scholars agreee that the books of Matthew and Luke do not depend on each other like they depend on Mark.

Q is Non-Canon

Explanation 3: Q is the non-canonical 'Gospel of the Hebrews'.

The Gospel of the Hebrews would be a short gospel consisting of the sayings attributed to Jesus.

The Gospel of the Hebrews is second among Jerome's chronology of Christian Writings (listed after Mark).

The Gospel of the Hebrews shares very little in common with either Matthew or Luke.

Q + Mark + Matthew = Luke

The Three-Source Hypothesis: Suggests Q is a proto-Gospel quoted in the works of Papias.

Papias' writings are often mistaken as an abridged version of Matthew.

Further states that the book of Luke was written later than accepted and took from Matthew, Mark, and Q.

Four Source

Four Source Hypothesis: Suggests the Q Gospel alone is not enough to explain the discrepancies between Matthew and Luke.

States that the books of Matthew and Luke not only drew material from Mark and Q, but also a Proto-Matthew and Proto-Luke (supposedly evidenced by the writings of Papias).

Alternate Theory: These three gospels draw common elements from either the Ur-Gospel or oral traditions.

Probability of Recovery

Highly unlikely for any unaltered written version to be unearthed.

A List of Stories Attributed to the Q Gospel

The Beatitudes (describes the blessedness of those who have certain qualities/experiences peculiar to those belonging to the Kingdom of Heaven)

Love Thy Enemies

The Golden Rule

Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged

The Test of a Good Person

The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Builders

The Parable of the Lost Sheep

The Parable of the Wedding Feast

The Parable of the Talnts

The Parable of the Leaven

The Parable of the Blind Leading the Blond

The Lord's Prayer

Expounding the Law

The Birds of Heaven and The Lillies In the Field

Sources

Lost Media Wiki

Early Christian Writings

[clanborn]

locked out of heaven

based on The Fallen Angel by Alexandre Cabanel

[anniflamma]

So I’ve received a couple of anonymous messages telling me that they were really disappointed in me for liking Elian's Antinous fanart. Instead of answering them individually, I’m just going to make an angry rant post instead. Most of if probably won't make sense anyway.

This post have talk about SA, and homophobia. Be aware. I don’t ship genuinely Telemachus and Antinous, if that’s what you’re wondering. I didn’t even consider the possibility that ship could even exist. At the end of the day, I don't care about that ship.

And do you want me to explain that I know SA is bad? Or that I’m aware Telemachus/Antinous is a toxic ship? Do you think I’m dumb and don’t know that? You don't have to explain to me either, I know that SA is bad, I have experienced it, you don't have to explain to me, trust me I know.

I like Elian's art because it’s really beautiful. Her work is a huge inspiration and encouragement for me when making animatics. But do I REALLY have to spell out, word for word, that I know Antinous is an antagonist and tries to do bad things? Does it mean every time someone draws Antinous and I like it, I have to explain that I like the drawing because it’s well done, not because I support Antinous’ intent toward Penelope and wants to kill Telemachus?

I mean, I’ve seen tons of thirsty comments like, "I hate how Zeus treats women, but your design is really hot" or "Even if Poseidon SA Demeter, this Poseidon I'd go down on all fours for!"

I have seen some stuff….

I guess I could just imitate something like that????

But I know it’s a joke and I know its a fantasy that someone is expressing. Its not real, its fictional. I know all those thirsty ppl who simp over Poseidon, Zeus, or even Antinous aren’t supporting hatred and violence toward women. And yes, I am expecting that you should already know this too. Because if we gonna assume the worst of ppl… Then everyone who likes Greek myth/Epic the musical are pro SA. "Do you like Crice from Epic the musical? That means that you support her actions, you support SA!" "Oh you like Odysseus?! He killed a baby and all of his female slaves cuz they got SA by the suitors! You support infanticide, slavery and SA!" Do you hear how dumb that sounds? To be honest, I wouldn’t be that surprised if there are some who think like this. I mean, this discussion wouldn’t even be a thing, right.

And if you don’t know, I literally make thirst art of Poseidon (and that includes Zeus and Hermes), and you don’t see it as a bad thing??? It’s Poseidon… Do you know what he has done to women in the myths?!

Im going to ramble here and I will bring up stories from greek myth that have SA in it. So be aware.

One example is the story of Caeneus. When Caeneus was a woman, his parents left him to take care of the house while they were out running errands. Poseidon took that as an opportunity to break into the house and sexually assault him. This is probably the only myth where Poseidon actually feels bad after what he did, so he grants Caeneus a wish. Aww, how sweet~~~ /sarcasm.

Do I need to give an example of Zeus? We all know what Zeus does. But hey, I’ve made Poseidon/Hermes ship art. And guess what? There’s a story where Hermes breaks a woman’s leg so she can’t run away from him, and then he sexually assaults her. Isn’t that cute~~! /sarcasm

Heck, I can even go on with my biblical ships. David/Jonathan—David, a serial assaulter and murderer, and Jonathan, a mass murderer. But do I support their actions? No, I do not support mass murder, and its really dumb that I have to spell it out for you.

Daniel/Darius is even questionable too! It's literally a king and his servant, and that power imbalance is so big I don’t know what to tell you! Do I have to spell it out that I know that, in real life, king/servant relationships aren’t cute at all?!

All of these characters that I’ve listed have done or represent horrible things. And I have to tell you that I don't support their actions?! Really? You really can't think outside the box?

But do you see what I’m trying to tell you? We can simp over other ancient mythological figures but Antinous is the red line that we can never cross??? It’s hypocritical and immature, that’s what it is.

Right now, ppl loves the Ody seduces Zeus art I made. And that "ship" is well really questionable too! But nobody have called me a witch and tries to burn me at the stake yet. 😐

And the thing is, I can separate these fictional characters from the real world. I can also separate the fictional material from other fictional interpretations. Exemple, I like The Song of Achilles, in it, they are the same age, but I am also aware that in the Iliad, Achilles is 16 and Patroclus is 26. But do I automatically assume that Madeline Miller likes teens? No! Do I assume that everyone who likes The Song Of Achilles like that shit? No!

But we still can have a disscussion about it without making it into a witch trial.

As long as we can separate different fictional materials, then everything is fine. It only becomes a problem if a person can’t separate them. Then we have a problem. I can acknowledge that my depiction of King David from the bible is not the same as from the original story and that he is horrible person towards women. If I couldn't acknowledge that, then its bad! The same goes for Antinous if someone makes an AU or headcanon about him. If someone want so make AUs about Antinous, my first thoughts isnt "Oh they like to SA ppl!". At the end of the day, this is just a group from tiktok who didn’t like a toxic ship and decided to bully an artist while acting like they have superior morals.

And I get this type of shit from christians when I make my queer bible interpitations, both from those that don't like the queer stuff but also those that points out that David and Jonathan were horrible ppl.

So I rarely answer comments like this because they usually end up spewing beliefs filled with homophobia and Islamophobia. Heck rasism sometimes, apparently, Christians don’t know that the Bible takes place in the Middle East, and they are angry at me for drawing them looking like Arabs! I just delete their comments before they gets there. Making queer biblical animatics on TikTok that go viral on the Christian side is not fun at all guys....

And hate to say it but tiktok Epic fans sound really similar. You are acting like you’re on a pedestal, holier than thou. Its just a different font.

+ I haven’t forgotten all those homophobic comments I got on my David/Jonathan animatic that I posted right after my Ruthlessness animatic. Epic fans were saying they didn’t want “that gay shit” and wanted to see more Epic stuff. Hate to break it to you all, but the Epic fandom isn’t that innocent.

[answermywearyquery]

great 😳 + dr. tyme's large equipment 😏

[castielsprostate]

judas, ass up in the air: oh my-, oh, oh right there hit it J, oh my god...

jesus, stopping mid-thrust: what the- did you just call out my dad's name??? did- did you fuck my dad?? judas did you fucking fuck my dad???

judas: what??? no it's- the locals were saying it! like... like "omg" yknow?

jesus: you fucked my dad. YOU FUCKED MY DAD!! i knew it! i knew it was weird you were on your knees more often praying and begging for forgiveness...

judas: jesus i can expla-

jesus: you fucked my dad!!!! oh my god- fuck!

[dunmeshistash]

What chapter/ chapters tell Mithrun’s backstory? or if it’s not too many could you post those pages? I read the whole manga but for some reason I have no memory of reading about Mithrun’s backstory and I’ve been confused about how he got to be the way he is. I read the wiki but I want to go back and read the actual part of the manga that will explain this to me. Thank you!

The version Kabru tells is from chapter 62, might be a little confusing cause it's told between other things happening as they await for the canaries to save them. Its not really short enough for me to post the whole thing here plus its a great chapter I recommend rereading. (It's also the kabumisu canon foot fetish chapter)

As the chapter cover implies this chapter is a VERY condensed and cleaned up version Kabru made for us (for Laios actually)

So it's a "unreliable narrator" version of his backstory and things like the woman he wanted might have been overstated in Kabrus version cause as he says her

It's just a good point to make people invested.

That being said we also get some more things about his backstory from extras! (I recommend reading chapter 62 before the extras tho)

First there's Mithrun's own adventurer's bible extra

With this right away we see the story Kabru was telling left out several things that were important, like how Mithrun WASN'T the perfect youth. And how his jealousy for his brother was greater than just wanting to have his girl.

Another one is Milsiril's Extra

Here we have a better perspective of how he was perceived. And how she helped him get back on his feet and join the canaries again after utaya, Kabru's version skips completely over the fact he needed 20 years of rehab to be able to come back lmao. Now for daydream hour extras we have this one that shows just HOW MESSY his recovery actually was.

And that the brother he dismissed was the one to help him. And Milsiril helping with his rehabilitation once she had retired from the canaries.

Here's Mithruns timeline if you want to check when and how far apart things happened!

I don't think I missed anything.. hope this helps!

[chinzhilla]

I've done all of this... why can't you understand me? This is all for you! I beg you. Great, Believe me.

4 Minutes episode 6, dir. Ning Bhanbhassa Dhubthien

[ladypepperofdavenshire]

"In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" - Ephesians 1:7 NKJV

Happy Easter, He is Risen Indeed 🕊️

[j0celynh0rr0r]

I’d love to see this irl

[divineandmajesticinone]

4 MINUTES (2024) I 1.03