Welcome to my post!
Let's just cut to the chase. I'm an African-American female living in NYC. I am looking for a like-minded individual in hopes of establishing a friendship that blossoms into a long-term relationship with that special someone. If you believe that we would get along and connect- please put effort into your first message and give me an idea of who you are as a person.
About me:

• 29 years old.
• Average weight
• I'm a social worker in NYC.
• Graduated with my masters degree in public health.
• I enjoy ancient Greek/Roman history.
• Dry sense of humor.
• Long term goal is to visit all of the Smithsonian museums.
• I'm an avid podcast listener- enjoying various podcasts: We're Here to Help, Tigerbelly, Factually, etc.
• I enjoy video games! The first game I ever played was Pokemon Red for the GBC. Currently trying out Hades 2 on the PC. I also own a Nintendo Switch and a PS5.
• My long-term goal is to travel more- I have some trips planned for the rest of the year. I aim to go to Hawaii, Greece, Spain, Japan, & Italy hopefully next 5 years.
• I enjoy reading fiction novels, particularly anything mystery, adventure & romance genres. I also own a few comic books (mainly Marvel comics).

I'm looking to make memories & have lots of laughs with the right person.
Looking for:

• Male between the ages of 26-36 years of age.
• Resides in NYC/Long Island/Westchester OR JC/Hoboken/North Jersey area. NO LONG DISTANCE.
• Someone who has a good sense of humor.
• Has similar hobbies/commonalities as mine.
• Willing to explore the city (food/movies/culture/museums).
• Enjoys traveling.

If anything in my post sparks interest, please DM me with a blurb about yourself.

Alrightly, I have a somewhat solid premise but I'm having a hard time coming up with a main antagonist that's properly 3D and not a bad Bond villain.
Premise:
Retired warrior, MC (like Andromache the Scythian who goes where she thinks she's needed), saves a young soldier, Edmund, from dying and offers him a place to recover. He ends up staying an entire year (although healed within months). Long-story-short his people come knocking and accuse him of deserting and her of harbouring/kidnapping him before dragging them both off to the capital city.
Ed's country is recovering from war a few years previously. MC fought by their side but didn't disclose her identity. Her own country was attacked and her people killed for no reason other than power and control when she was a kid.
When magic users appear in the military, Ed's country is known for pushing them to their limit and abusing their power. NOT maliciously but rather out of necessity. MC grew up in very different culture and her grandfather taught her how to use her magic properly. Ed misusing his magic by accident is how his people eventually found him and MC was teaching him how to use it properly so as to protect his body from damage/ burnout/ pain.
I want the story to be centered on her experience in a beautiful flourishing city that's still recovering from war (what after the war might look like on a city; demolished buildings, refugees, PTSD in soldiers and civilians); MC helping Ed and Roman (he finds Ed and MC, has same magic problem as Ed). She sees a lot of herself young in Ed and wants to protect him.
The judgement for her 'crimes' is a tool to get her out of her comfortable life rather than a central plot point as it's pretty obvious she didn't kidnap or hold Ed against his will.
Basically, I'm missing a proper plot thus a proper villain/ main antagonist and I've ended up with a whole lot of something yet a whole lot of nothing at the same time.
Any suggestions?
Many thanks!

I'm a aspiring writer and a returning wwe fan, and I just was hoping to post here and maybe get some type of help. I am currently working on pushing my writing skill and trying new things so in saying that I decided to model a story of mine after the current bloodline saga with my own touches of course but I'm embarrassed about this and hope you all don't think any less of me but to tell you things about my story the current focus is on two main characters that have a LONG history with each other as they were in a faction/childhood group together until one betrayed the other at the hands of Vince's final screw you in breaking up the quartet (similar to the shield but more of a slow emotional breakdown of things that ended at wrestlemania) one character leaves wwe for a period and comes back to former friend being essentially a roman reigns like heel and our returning character sets out to take him down and possibly reform the group. (A redemption arc will come because I plan another faction forcing the group to reconcile and reform)
I just had questions on how to properly write a manipulative, somewhat paranoid person (the character is deeper than this but I'm trying to condense explain everything)
I can explain all this more if necessary and probably better if asked but embarrassment and cringe is taking over so thank you if anyone decides to help out

This FYI will focus on giving you a strong start in my faction, Apart from Live events and Towers, your two main issues at the start will be Proving Grounds (PG) and Faction Wars (FW).
I will discuss faction wars later in the article as some of the strongest cards in the game, even at present, are located there. But to have an easier time in faction wars you will need good card to begin with. So hers how to get a head start on some great Sapphire and Ruby Cards.
In regards to your starter pack choose whatever you prefer, you will receive emerald evo cards which, by meeting specific requirements will evolve gem levels eventually reaching Ruby 80 overall. I tend to go for Strikers as they are easier to meet the requirements and MFP match actions for PG, Lives and Towers.
MyRise and Showcase:
Completion of these modes unlock various my faction cards and some of them are very strong.
Cheesing Myrise and Showcase: If you just want to blast through the modes, set it to easy and go to balancing, then turn everything in your favour, reversals, kick outs, health and regarding submission, change it so the AI is punished for wrong button presses, you not so and correct button presses are strong for you and weak for AI, you will be submitting people in seconds unless the match has objectives or stipulations to meet first. Is it scummy? Yes. Does it matter? No.
I would recommend showcase first, this can be laborious as you cant just win it but have to complete all objectives, again the difficultly adjustment will help but the part that rewards you is the end. It involves you taking part as the first entrant in a 30 man battle royale, to meet all objectives to unlock the showcase cards you need to survive and also eliminate 10 individuals during the run. Choose your wrestler wisely! Someone whos strong can reverse but can survive!
For completing Showcase Royale Rumble with 10 eliminations and winning you receive the following my faction cards which in my opinion are the best starting cards in the game prior to the FW bosses:

• Ruby Shawn Michaels '94 (83 Overall) - Amazing Agility, he will be your ladder match card
• Ruby Bianca Belair (82 Overall)
• Ruby Charlotte Flair (82 Overall)
• Ruby Rhea Ripley (82 Overall)
• Ruby Becky Lynch 81 (Overall)
• Ruby Ricky Steamboat (80 Overall)
• Sapphire Asuka (79 Overall)
• Sapphire George "The Animal" Steele (76 Overall)
• Sapphire Ken Shamrock (77 Overall)

My Rise is split into two Story's One male (Undisputed), one female (Unleashed), the female is linear and requires only one playthrough as long as you do all optional objectives to get all of the cards. Unleashed provides far more cards and far better cards:
Unleashed will provide the following My Faction Cards:

• Gold Psycho Sally (67 Overall)
• Gold Meilee "Fanny" Fan (66 Overall)
• Gold Geneva Rose (68 Overall)
• Sapphire Ava Moreno (76 Overall)
• Emerald Odyssey Rift (73 Overall)
• Emerald Justine (72 Overall)
• Emerald Carly Prime (74 Overall)
• Ruby Asuka (81 Overall)
• Ruby The Manifestation (82 Overall)
• Ruby John Cena (82 Overall)
• Ruby Batista (82 Overall)

The Male undisputed story will require completing the story twice and completing all optional objectives also, the main branch is during a choice to stay with Miz or go to NXT. The undisputed cards you unlock are as follows:

• Gold Cole Quinn (65 Overall)
• Gold Gabriel Slade (69 Overall)
• Sapphire Chosen (75 Overall)
• Sapphire Slade (79 Overall)
• Sapphire Zero (78 Overall)
• Ruby Gigi Dolan (80 Overall)
• Ruby El Ordinario (81 Overall)

LOCKER CODES:
Check which locker codes are active and enter them. Some expire, they provide free packs and cards, free agent cards can be scrapped for MFP, DO NOT ASSIGN THEM! Find recent locker code links here, also this is a great resource.
WWE 2K24 Locker Codes List for MyFACTION (May 2024) WWE 2K24 Coverage (thesmackdownhotel.com)
FW Bosses:
This section will be quick as I may do a whole FYI article on Faction wars and the best cards and why but my list in order are as follows:
Best Males:

1. Stone Cold Steve Austin
2. Rock (either, same stats and badges if not Cena will suffice the one that matches rocks badges)

After this its your choice, another rock or Cena couldn't hurt, YOKO and Andre were beast but the stamina nerf has affected them. Undertaker has terrible badges for his class but his super finisher is a submission and coupled with his space invader badge he can make submitting foes easy. I am not the biggest fan of Cody card but he's okay,
Your 4th card for the line up should be your showcase Shaun Michaels, TRUST ME!
Honorable Mentions:
The FW Sapphire Roman, Bobby, 78 Cena and Randy can be good.
Females:

1. TRISH STRATUS WITHOUT A DOUBT. OP, still one of the best female cards.
2. Bailey - Trust me her badges, she stuns easy and her stuns drain enemy special and finisher.
3. Either Charlotte 84 or the Becky 84 but go for charlotte, quicker limb attacks, on a stun bar can do three leg attacks, Becky does one! Furthermore, she has purple space invader meaning her subs are stronger.

Honorable mentions:
FW Sapphire Trish Stratus, Asuka, Chyna.
My starting line up after a while was this:
Males: Stone Cold, Rock, Rock, Shaun Michaels Showcase
Females: Trish, Bailey, Charlotte 84, Becky (84) (But Bianca, Becky or rhea from showcase are good also!).
I hope this is useful and Sub please chime in with your own advice. The more discourse the better. And again to the new players! Welcome!
PS Apologies for typos. Did this on my android.

Why Roman empire fell? Main causes.

The fall of the Roman Empire in the West wasn't caused by a single event, but rather a combination of factors that weakened the empire over a long period. Some of the main causes historians point to include:

• Invasions by Barbarian Tribes: For centuries, Rome faced pressure from Germanic tribes on its borders. By the 4th and 5th centuries, these groups, like the Visigoths and Huns, were able to breach Roman defenses and settle within the empire.
• Economic Decline: The vast Roman Empire was expensive to maintain. Over time, a combination of factors like overspending on military, high taxes, and inflation strained the economy.
• Political Instability: A series of weak emperors and power struggles weakened central authority. This made it difficult for Rome to respond effectively to threats or hold its vast territories together.
• Military Issues: The Roman military, once a powerful force, weakened over time. The ability to recruit and train legions declined, and corruption became an issue.
• The Rise of Christianity: The spread of Christianity, which differed greatly from traditional Roman religion, introduced some social and cultural divisions within the empire.

These are just some of the main reasons why the Western Roman Empire fell. It's important to remember that the decline was complex and historians continue to debate the relative importance of these factors.

What would must had be done so Roman empire could prevail?

That's a fascinating question! However, it's important to remember that history doesn't offer do-overs. The fall of the Roman Empire stemmed from a complex web of issues that built up over centuries. Here are some things the Romans could have tried, though success isn't guaranteed:

• Economic Reform: Addressing inflation, finding new sources of revenue, and promoting trade could have strengthened the empire's financial base.
• Military Reorganization: Reforms focusing on recruitment, training, and equipment could have bolstered the legions' effectiveness.
• Stronger Leadership: A series of capable emperors who prioritized stability, addressed corruption, and inspired loyalty might have held the empire together.
• Integration of Barbarian Tribes: Instead of just fighting them off, the Romans could have attempted to assimilate barbarian groups, giving them a stake in the empire's success.
• Religious Tolerance: Greater acceptance of Christianity, perhaps even integrating some aspects into Roman religion, could have lessened social and cultural divisions.

It's also important to consider external factors. The rise of powerful enemies like the Huns might have been difficult to overcome regardless of Roman actions.
Ultimately, the Roman Empire's fall was a product of its time. The solutions we think of today might not have been feasible in their historical context. However, exploring these "what ifs" allows us to gain a deeper understanding of the factors that contribute to the rise and fall of empires.

I know hardly anything about the country, though I am researching. I am curious if anyone here knows about Italian mythology or folklore I could include in the book (or things about Italy that would make the book feel more genuine, like dialects or phrases).
I do not mean Roman! I’m talking about Italy after the fall of the empire (mainly because I could not learn all the Roman gods for the life of me).
Grazie per i vostri aiuto!

Just curious how you got to the point you were in. I'll start.
I spent probably the first 19 years of my life without really knowing much about Calvinism. I went to a Lutheran private school for a couple years, and it didn't really come up more than once or twice, so I didn't really give it much thought. Thinking back, I was probably what you would consider a Provisionist.
I went to a private Bible College that was predominantly Calvinist. I was confronted a number of times about my views, and ended up embracing more of a Classical Arminian view similar to Molinism. I didn't know how to defend my views* because I had never been confronted about it before. I think this came about from a misunderstanding of Total Depravity, Limited Atonement, and Perseverance of the Saints. I would have described myself as a 2 1/2 point Calvinist. I saw enough verses that contradicted Calvinist soteriology to plant seeds of doubt, but passages like Romans and Ephesians made me wonder.
*Taking a view prior to establishing it yourself is bad epistemology.
So this 2 1/2 point Calvinism was my view until I had a profound spiritual experience in 2018 which started my journey back into theology as a field of personal interest. I was attending a 5-point Calvinist church at the time along with my wife, which I did for a number of years through a long multi-year study of Romans. This was actually really good for me because it gave me an opportunity to study the Calvinist position in detail. I became intimately familiar with the arguments. I realized that they weren't engaging very well with the "Arminian" position so I hit a point where I decided I was going to re-evaluate my positions on soteriology. I found Steve Gregg (The Narrow Path) on the radio and started listening to his program and learned he had a free lecture series on the topic. What I liked is that he systematically goes through all the major prooftexts and quite a few of the minor ones without skipping the hard ones. When I realized that you couldn't establish Total Depravity without it already being established (i.e. begging the question), I became a Provisionist. I think a careful reading of Romans 3 is what sealed the deal for me. I took the "John Piper Challenge" and started highlighting Calvinist leaning passages in blue and non-Calvinist leaning passages in yellow. Unlike John Piper, however, I started realizing the overwhelming evidence of the non-Calvinist position. I also found Leighton Flowers (Soteriology101) and Kevin Thompson (Beyond the Fundamentals) about that same time which helped a great deal to further demolish my presuppositions. It took a while before I really had a robust definitions of Election and Predestination, but when I saw Kevin's seminal word studies on Election and Predestination, it was eye opening. Before then I had an Arminian view of those terms and I thought they were the same thing.
Now I have taken a slightly different approach, and my main focus is on Epistemology rather than Theology. It is more broad reaching and touches on a lot more issues than Theology does.
So that's my story in a nutshell, what is yours?

I was doing some digging around about the meaning of Cryo and it’s “ideal”, and stumbled across a few interesting connections. I am not sure if anyone else has found these connections already (from a quick check) – I tend to only hop on here when I have a crazy theory I want to share. Hopefully I am not rehashing something that's already been covered!
The main theory is that the power of Cryo, like Anemo, is related to Time.
To be more specific, I think Cryo may be the power that creates the "Seeds" that are carried by "the winds of time".
I came across this idea when trying to look into the "ideal" of Cryo.
From what we have seen in the game, all elements are tied to an “ideal”, and each “ideal” is tied to a deeper meaning connected to the world itself. To give some brief examples:

• Anemo – freedom, time and perhaps Death
• Geo – Contracts(perhaps between mortal and divine?) and perhaps history.
• Electro – Eternity and what is eternal, and Change is eternal or constant.
• Dendro – Wisdom, memories and knowledge through experience.
• Hydro – Justice, life and emotion.
• Pyro – War and rebirth and the erasure of memories (as seen from Arlecchino).

From what we know, it seems like the Cryo Archon’s ideal is likely to have been “Love”. So what deeper meaning does “Love” mean and how does it relate to ice or “Cryo”?
And then from there I kind of spiralled!
The main theory here is explained in the first two sections, and the rest of the sections I try and use this theory to explain other mysteries in the game. Those sections might be heavier in speculation.
The Meaning of Cryo
While I'm not sure I have a concrete “meaning” or understanding of Cryo yet, I came across a few interesting themes surrounding the Cryo Element:

• The descriptions of both the Large Cryo Slime and Cryo Abyss Mage mention their protective shields, despite the fact that similar enemies don’t mention this in their description (Geo Slime and other Abyss Mages)
• The Cryo Abyss Mage description also says that their body is vulnerable (hence its need for protection).
• Cryo Hypostasis gameplay has the Hypostasis create a shield while it is healing (protection while vulnerable)
• Tiara of Frost artefact description: “facing fatal flaws. Fatal flaws are born of a fear of death. Fear of death is born of having things and people to care about” (Fatal flaws are the “vunerability” to protect?)
• Tiara of Frost artefact description: “life as weak, and earth blanketed in unending ice” (weakness is a vulnerability – and also I am not sure if the ice is a bad thing here, perhaps the ice was meant to protect the “weak” life?)
• The Spirit Locket Of Boreas description mentions that Andrius let his power seep into the land to “protect” it.
• Childe who is from Shneznaya says “it’s all about family where I am from” (family and love are easy to relate to each other)
• Qiqi Vision Story: Qiqi has a Cryo Vision and apparently before she received it she missed her family.

To summarise, there seems to be themes of protection(perhaps preservation?),family, and vulnerability.
Thematically I can see the ties between these – we love our family(typically) and want to protect them, and the things we protect can be seen as our vulnerability(and/or, we protect things that are vulnerable).
So "love" inspires us to "protect".
Love and it's connection to "protection" is an important part of this theory.
Cryo and Time
There are a few instances in descriptions where both ice/snow/Cryo and time are mentioned together.

• Qiqi Vision story: before receiving her Cryo vision (while she was dying or on the verge of dying), Qiqi wished that time could stop.
• Cryo Hypotasis drop, the Crystalline Bloom, says: “Perhaps it is stagnant time, that never-thawing bosom, that is the essence of this undying flower.”
• Blizzard Strayer artefact set, Frozen Homeland’s Demise, says: “An ancient hourglass with fine powdered snow flowing in it. Even the coldest winter cannot freeze the flow of time. "The cold that descends from the sky can freeze time itself."
  • To me, this might be drawing a distinction between ice and “Cryo”. Like how Hydro and water are not considered the same thing because Hydro is toxic, as seen in the description of Hydro slimes. So normal winters can’t freeze time but perhaps Cryo can?

Furthermore:

• We are able to melt frozen boars in game and when melted, they are completely fine. It seems that they were literally “frozen in time”.
• We also have that quest with Xiangling, where we find Olaf who was frozen by a Cryo Regisvine 300 years ago - and seems to have survived this process unscathed. He effectively time travelled from the past to the future.

So overall, there seems to be a lot of talk about “freezing time”, and it seems like freezing a living organism can preserve them in a way that doesn't kill them (like in real life).
We have seen how Cryo might be related to the idea of “protection” as well, or perhaps preservation?.
So perhaps we can say that the Cryo element seems to be able to "protect" things from the flow of time?
“Seeds of stories, brought by the wind and cultivated by time. Stories brought on the wind will bloom into legends in due time.” - Sundial in Mondstadt related to the God of Time.
In this quote above, it says that “seeds” are brought by the wind/Anemo.
But what are these “seeds”?
While I can’t say exactly what they are, I think that perhaps these “seeds” are at least partially created through the powers of Cryo.
I came to this conclusion after looking at the themes that surround Cryo: love, protection and vulnerability.
These themes, to me, seem to apply perfectly to the concept or function of “seeds”.
A seed tends to need a protective shell, to shield the “vulnerable” parts within.
A seed waits for the correct conditions to sprout, remaining dormant otherwise.
This dormancy can be seen as being “frozen in time”. A seed is effectively “frozen in time” and won’t sprout until the correct conditions are met. This power of protection from time being related to Cryo may be similiar to how the power of Dendro is related to the power of dreams.
Also, remember that when asked about the Cryo Archon, Venti said that “500 years ago, I knew her well.”?
Sure, they are both Archons, but perhaps they were also close because either 1) they both served the God of Time or 2)Cryo Archon is a god of time (perhaps less likely, though).
So the “seeds” frozen in time and/or protected from time, by Cryo, are then carried by the winds of Anemo, to the correct moments that allow them to sprout.
The Love of the Three Moons
This part gets a little more speculative, but fun!
So the three Moon Sisters are suspected to be possible Gods of Time, and also seemed to rule over the Seelie in some capacity.
Love seems related to the fall of the Seelie – as the Seelie seemed to have been forbidden from falling in love with humans. It was after one of the Seelie married a “traveller from afar” that the Seelie fell – some catastrophe struck as a result, soon after this “marriage”.
With the added context that love possibly means or results in the protection from time – that could explain why falling in love with a human was seen as bad. Abusing your powers to protect a human from time sounds bad, for sure.
And maybe, just maybe, the “love” the Seelie had were finite in some way? Which would explain why they couldn’t dish it out to humans freely. Maybe, they had none of this “protection” left over for themselves after giving it away… leaving them to deteriorate and become the lifeforms we see them in today?
In fact, if this is true, then the Seelie gave their love to a “Traveller from afar” which sounds like it could have been an entity similar to the Traveller. The Traveller is said to be a star themselves.
What’s interesting about that is both the Abyss Sibling and the Travellers are stars, and they are possibly very old. In fact, in the We Will Be Reunited quest, the Abyss Sibling tells the Traveller that “I have more than enough time to wait for you, we’ve always had enough time.”
While this seems to be hinting that they have a lot of time, not necessarily immunity from time, it is interesting when you remember that the book Moonlit Bambo Forest says that the Moon Sisters “shared but one love, the stars of daybreak”.
If love is the protection from time, then it could mean that the twins have gained an immunity from the flow of time. Time does not affect them – as they have received the love of the Moon Sisters, who are possibly Gods of Time.
Khaenri’ah, Dainsleif and the Inteyvat
While the pure-blooded Khaenri’ahns are cursed with Immortality, they still seem to be under the effects of time. They don’t seem to be immune.
They seem to still be undergoing some sort of decay – whether it be their memories, mental state, or decaying “from within” (As Chlothar speculates).
HOWEVER – remember how Dainsleif said that he was able to resist the effects of his curse due to the presence of “it”? It was somewhere in the Chasm questline, where he was unsure how the Black Serpent Knights were able to retain some of their humanity without “it”.
Perhaps Dainsleif has also received the “love” of a Seelie/Moon SisteTime god (or whatever the Cryo Archon actually is)?
In fact, now I am wondering if this is also related to the Inteyvat flower, which would harden when In Teyvat, and then return to normal when back in Khaenri’ah.
Khaenri’ah might be located somewhere in the Abyss, and the Abyss seems to have a strange flow of time, after all.
So it might not be too far of a stretch that the Inteyvat flowers are also “protected from time” with this power of love/Cryo until the flower returns to the correct “time” – Khaenri’ah. Though that would also mean that Khaenri’ah is located in a different place in time – in the future or the past, which would be interesting. But probably not impossible from what we have seen in Ei’s second story quest and the Perilous Trails Chasm quest.
Possible Links between Paimon and the Tsaritsa
So there seems to be possible links between the element of Cryo, love, and protection.
The God of Cryo, who is potentially the God of Love and, by extension, potentially the God of Protection…hm.
Remember the “About Yashiori Island” voice lines?
In those voice lines, Paimon claims to be the “god of protection”.
Sure she seems cheeky about it, and was probably joking, but who knows at this point! She might have remembered something subconsciously or this may just be foreshadowing, etc, etc.
Either way, I started digging around to see if I can find any mythological links in real life.
A few interesting things I found:

• Aphrodite, the greek goddess of love, according to some myths, was born from sea foam. And we first met Paimon after we fished her out of the sea.
• Aphrodite seems to be related to the Cherubs (She mothered Eros, who together with its roman equivalent Cupid, influenced the iconography of the Cherubs) and apparently Paimon in the Ars Goetia might have been a Cherub (at least according to Wikipedia).
  
• Paimon in the Ars Goetia could “bestow dignities and lordships”. Genshin Paimon gives people nicknames – but the Tsaritsa bestows “new names” upon her Harbingers. Maybe a coincidence, but you could say that both of them “bestow dignities and lordships”.
  
• Paimon in the Ars Goetia is said to be able to create “visions” (as in dreams) and we do know the Tsaritsa’s Fatui have Delusions, which are fake Visions.
  
• Paimon in the Ars Goetia is also said to have the power of “acquiring and dismissing servant spirits” –perhaps the Fatui Harbingers?
  

I’ve already made a theory previously on this subreddit about the Tsaritsa and the Moon Sisters. So if Paimon is also related to the Seelies and/or Moon Sisters, perhaps these connections between her and the Tsaritsa is not too strange if the theory about Cryo and time are true.
In fact, the goddess Hathor is said to be the Egyptian version of Aphrodite, god of love, and from reading the wikipedia page, Hathor seems very similar to the Goddess of Flowers – who was a Seelie - and the Seelie served the Moon Sisters, who may have been gods of Time.
There isn’t much more for me to say here – I am not saying that Paimon and Tsaritsa are the same person, but just that I find it interesting that there may be some overlaps between the two characters. I can’t say for sure what this overlap means. Maybe Paimon is a fragment of the Tsaritsa, maybe Paimon was a servant of the God of Time along with the Tsaritsa, maybe Paimon is the God of Time and is therefore the Tsaritsa’s boss. Who knows. Just interesting.
Time and the Preservation of Memories
In the Parable of the Lethied Lotus in the Book of Sun and Moon, it says:
"A ship captain searching for the way back to the surface discovered a tribe of people who ate these lotuses. Some crew members stayed in that place. Others rejected that temptation."
In this story, staying where people ate these lotuses is said to be a "temptation". The title of this Parable described the lotuses as "lethied" which is related to the Lethe river of greek mythology, where drinking from it causes you to "forget". In other words, forgetting is a temptation they wanted to avoid.
This is in the same book that mentions the God of Time, and Enkanomiya, where they worshipped the God of Time.
Now, Ganyu, a Cryo character, uses Amos Bow, and the literal translation of this weapon, according to the wiki, is "Determination to Not Forget".
So perhaps this power of "protection" can also protect memories.
Since time causes memories to "fade" (best example, Dainsleif's own faded memory due to his long life) then perhaps this power of time immunity can also be used on memories.
TLDR:
Cryo protects things from time, and those things are then carried by Anemo. Cryo seems to have the ability to freeze things in time (possibly), or in other words, to protect them from the flow of time. The Tsaritsa, as the Cryo Archon, may have a deeper relationship to the God of Time (or she is a god of time – if you think that there are multiple aspects that rule different types of time).
There are also some interesting possible connections between Paimon and the Tsaritsa, which, if they are both related to the god of time, makes sense.
The twins may have also received some sort of protection of time, since they are stars and the Moon sisters loved the stars of daybreak.
Also this might also be related to Dainsleif and his ability to resist his curse somewhat, and Inteyvat flowers.
And this "protection from time" may also be used to preserve more intangible things - like memories.
Discussion/Conclusion
So what does “Love” mean in the world of Teyvat?
In Genshin, the power of Cryo, and therefore the power of love, may be the power to protect things from the flow of time. It protects things from the flow of time, creating a "seed", and that seed stays dormant or "frozen in time" until its the perfect moment for those things to “sprout”.
If true, this calls a lot of things into question.
The Tsaritsa’s plans to possible recreate the world may also link back to this idea of “seeds” – she may blanket the world in snow to make it a “seed” for the next world.
I also think that if this is true, then it is quite poetic that Shneznaya – the land of the Cryo Archon – is the last region in Teyvat we visit (Khaenri’ah probably/possibly not being counted as “in Teyvat” if its located in the Abyss).
Anemo also seems to signify death in some ways (Venti’s Story Quest), and if Cryo is related to the concept of “seeds”, then Cryo represents life or birth.
“Seeds brought on the wind will bloom into legends in due time.”
Anemo is death, and is the wind that carries the seeds, and Cryo is birth, the creation of the seeds.
We started the game in the land of Anemo, of wind, and death – we started our journey in the land of “endings” and, if this theory holds true, then the last place we’ll visit in Teyvat will be the land of Cryo, of ice, seeds, and birth.
We started at the end, and will end at the start.
That is more or less it. I hope you all enjoyed reading my descent into madness! Hopefully not too wordy as I have trouble making things concise and I was getting real tired towards the end of this ha ha. What do you guys think? I would love to hear any thoughts or input, or even corrections if I got some things wrong.

Just for clarification, by “Ruthenian”, I specifically mean the people of what is now approximately Ukraine and Belarus, and who spoke a language which would form into modern Ukrainian and Belarusian.
I’m specifically focused on the development of the Ruthenian Orthodox nobility which increasingly adopted aspects of Western style knighthood as early as the Galician-Volhynian Wars (early to mid 14th century) onwards. By the period of the mid to late 14th century, and especially the 15th century, many Ukrainian, Belarusian, Lithuanian and Polish historians have noted the development of a kind of western style knight culture in Ruthenia at this time despite their Orthodox faith (similar developments had also occurred in Serbia, Wallachia, Moldova, etc.) In some case this was tied to certain princely states often led by Lithuanian-Ruthenian branch of the Gediminids (who were often of Orthodox extraction, yet still maintained ties to their Roman Catholic relatives) such as the Duchy of Podolia or the later Principality of Kiev, or on smaller scales such as the Lviv Banner of knights described by various Polish and Ruthenian recountings of the Battle of Grunwald in 1410. One such knight was even canonized during the Orthodox Church, Feodor Ostrogski. By the later 15th and 16th centuries, the knights of these regions managed to obtain more and more influence, such as the Hetman Konstantin Ostrogski and Roman Feodorovich Sanguszko, among others. Even the later (16th-17th centuries) Cossacks often found themselves portrayed or culturally influenced by such knightly legends, once knighthood had traditionally been understood to have faded.
Of course, the main issue is that many sources regarding this issue, be it in English, Ukrainian, Polish, etc., are incredibly difficult to track. If anyone would have access to any good sources or information, be it books, PDFS, papers, general informationor anything regarding this issue, particularly any in English, I would be in your debt.
Thank you for reading, and take care.

I am not even talking about scriptural problems within the bible, You don't have to open a single bible to start seeing the problems,
1-) The Problem of Salvation and Faith (Why the plan of salvation is ridiculous, and has failed)
I.The ridiculousness of the plan
A. Demanding blood for remission of sins Heb 9:22 - Why is this the terms that god insists upon? Isn't he the architect of the parameters regarding sin, punishment, and forgiveness? Is he not able to forgive sin without blood sacrifice? Can he not say, “No blood sacrifice necessary, I just forgive you?”
B. God sacrificing himself to himself to save us from himself by creating a loophole in the architecture for condemnation he engineered in the first place? This is your solution for a problem in which you yourself are the problem. It’s like a doctor stabbing people to be able to operate and save them.
C. Dying for someone else's crime does not equal justice in any court.
D. The sacrifice was not a sacrifice at all :

1. Jesus is said to be eternal
2. He spent a few days in misery out of his billions of years plus of existence
3. He spent a minutiae of a fraction of his existence suffering knowing he would be resurrected after the ordeal and spend eternity in divine luxury, and that somehow provides him justification to sentence us to trillions of years of eternity suffering without end?
4. Jesus is a supernatural immortal who suffered temporary mortal punishment and then sentences mortals to supernatural eternal punishment if they do not receive his sacrifice.
5. Why is three days of punishment followed by eternity in glory sufficient for all the horrible deeds any man has ever committed, but billions of years suffered in hell by a good moral person who does not believe due to lack of evidence is not sufficient?

2-) Nature of The Christian god
I. He is supposed to be an all Powerful and All mighty being and yet he died on a cross by his own creation (If you see someone claiming to be god and then you saw him hie before your very eyes, How on earth are you supposed to conclude anything else other than "This guy is a liar"?)
Modern Christians would respond to this saying "Only the Human part died, The Divine part wasn't affected"
Which again, doesn't make any sense :
A. Even when assuming a human sacrifice is somehow necessary for salvation, The sacrifice of 1 Human being can never be Enough to atone for the sins of all of mankind since Adam and Eve till the return of jesus.
I found a Coptic pope explaining this issue in detail, Here is a link to his book, https://st-takla.org/books/en/pope-shenouda-iii/nature-of-christ/propitiation-and-redemption.html
Quoting from it : "The belief in the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos is essential, necessary and fundamental for redemption. Redemption requires unlimited propitiation sufficient for the forgiveness of the unlimited sins of all the people through all ages. There was no solution other than the Incarnation of God the Logos to offer this through His Divine Power.
Thus, if we mention two natures and say that the human nature alone performed the act of redemption, it would have been entirely impossible to achieve unlimited propitiation for man's salvation. Hence comes the danger of speaking of two natures, each having its own specific tasks. In such case, the death of the human nature alone is insufficient."
It's very clear that saying only the human part died doesn't make any sense, Even according to the Christian theology itself.
B. The Trinity is based on a false idea
I know, It's a classic Argument against Christianity but you can't deny that it's an actual damning argument against the Christian theology.

1. God is all knowing but Jesus wasn't all knowing (mark 13:32)
2. Jesus is supposed to be god, but he is praying to himself to save himself with cries and tears?? (Luke 22:41-44)
3. Jesus is god but we can't say he is good because only god is good?? (Luke 18:18-19)
4. God can't be tempted by evil (James 1:13) but yet jesus was tempted by satan?? (Matthew 4:1)
5. Jesus is god but he can't do a thing on his own?? (John 5:31) 6.Jesus is supposed to be the same as the father, But their teachings are different? (John 7:16)

And so many more, Throught the bible i can't help but notice the intense number of verses which clearly states Jesus can't be god.
3-) The Problem of a Historical Jesus (Why we don’t know the actual historical Jesus)
I. No contemporary historical evidence,
A. No historian alive during Jesus day wrote about Jesus despite ample opportunity

1. The kings coming to his birth
2. Herod’s slaughter of baby boys
3. The overthrowing of money changers
4. Jesus triumphant entry into Jerusalem where he is declared king by the whole town.
5. Darkness covering the whole earth for hours on Jesus’ Death
6. The earthquakes at Jesus’ death
7. The rending of the temple veil at Jesus’ Death
8. The resurrection of Jesus that was seen by 500 witnesses.(Only Paul claims that, even tho he never met jesus)

II. The Gospels are contradicting, late hearsay accounts
A. Mark, the earliest gospel, was written at least after 70 A.D. (referencing fall of temple) by a non-eyewitness, and makes numerous cultural and geographical errors that a Jewish writer would not have made such as locations of rivers, cultural customs regarding divorce, locations of towns or Jesus quoting from the greek Septuagint etc. (see geographical and historical errors in this link, https://holtz.org/Library/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity/Criticism/Bible%20Problems%20by%20Packham%201998.htm#ERRORS )
B. The other gospels all copied from Mark. Luke and Matthew contain over 70% of Mark and mainly make changes in attempts to fix blatant errors made in Mark and to correct Mark’s poor grammar.The writer of Luke even reveals to us in Luke 1:2 that he was not an eyewitness, but that the story has been passed down to him.
C. Four where chosen by the church father Iraeneus because he believed the earth was founded on four pillars and so too, should the gospels be founded by only four accounts.
Iraenus also revealed the names of the Gospels in the late second century, without any reason to assume they where the authentic authors - no one knows who actually wrote them!
D. John was initially considered heretical by the early church because of its variation from the synoptic but was overwhelmingly popular amongst Christians and so was included.
E. The book of Revelations was also considered heretical by many :
For centuries The Revelation was a rejected book. In the 4th century, St.John Chrysostom and other bishops argued against it. Christians in Syria also reject it. The Synod of Laodicea: c. 363, rejected The Revelation. In the late 380s, Gregory of Nazianus produced a canon omitting The Revelation. Bishop Amphilocus of Iconium, in his poem Iambics for Seleucus written some time after 394, rejects The Revelation. When St.Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, producing the Vulgate bible c. 400, he argued for the Veritas Hebraica, meaning the truth of the Jewish Bible over the Septuagint translation. At the insistence of the Pope, however, he added existing translations for what he considered doubtful books: among them The Revelation. The Church in the East never included the Revelation.
4-) The early church did not seem to know anything about a historical Jesus. Huge amounts of disagreement over Jesus in the first hundred years :

1. Some churches didn’t even believe he had a physical body, prompting Paul to write about that very issue.
   
2. There was an enormous debate between all the major early churches as to whether Jesus was divine or not, this was settled at the council of Nicea by the Roman Emperor Constantine.
   

5-) Which Bible?
A. Over 450 English versions of the bible All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts
B. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain.
C. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts.
Take a look at this example, 1- Revised standard version 2- Revised standard version Catholic edition 3- NEW revised standard version Updated edition 4- NEW revised standard version Catholic edition 5- NEW revised standard version, Anglicised 6- NEW revised standard version, Anglicised Catholic edition
How many attempts would it take to finally get it right ?!
6-) The Morality of the bible
I don't like using Morality as an argument because i believe it's a subjective thing, But I cannot help but notice how the morals of the OT and the NT are completely contradictory
In the OT god was Angry, Vengeful, Demands war, order genocides, Ordered the killing of children and even the ripping open of pregnant women.
But in the NT he somehow became loving, a father figure, saying if anyone hits you you shouldn't even respond back.

• In Conclusion: I don't think Christianity can be accepted as the truth by any logical person (Even most convert stories i heard were basically "I saw jesus in a dream" or "The holy spirit held my hand")

There is so many Theological confusion, A salvation idea that makes 0 sense, Lack of any form of historical critirea of knowing what is true manuscripts and what is hearsays (The authors of the gospels are all Anynomous),
There is even disagreement within Christianity itself about what stories go into the bible (Many stories have been found out to be false like John 8:1-11 and Mark 16:18)
https://textandcanon.org/does-the-woman-caught-in-adultery-belong-in-the-bible/
The lack of consistency on literally everything makes it one of the least convincing religion in my opinion.

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

The main reason Jesus died on the cross was to defeat Satan and set us free from his oppressive rule. Everything else that Jesus accomplished was to be understood as an aspect and consequence of this victory (e.g., Recapitulation, Moral Influence, etc.).
This understanding of why Jesus had to die is called the Christus Victor (Latin for “Christ is Victorious”) view of the atonement. But, what exactly was Christ victorious from, and why? To find out the answers to these questions, we have to turn to the Old Testament, as that's what the apostles would often allude to in order to properly teach their audience the message they were trying to convey (Rom. 15:4).
The OT is full of conflict between the Father (YHVH) and false gods, between YHVH and cosmic forces of chaos. The Psalms speak of this conflict between YHVH and water monsters of the deeps (an ancient image for chaos) (Psa. 29:3-4; 74:10-14; 77:16, 19; 89:9-10; 104:2-9, etc).
The liberation of Israel from Egypt wasn’t just a conflict between Pharaoh and Moses. It was really between YHVH and the false gods of Egypt.
Regardless of whether you think the aforementioned descriptions are literal or metaphorical, the reality that the Old Testament describes is that humanity lived in a “cosmic war zone.”
The Christus Victor motif is about Christ reigning victorious over wicked principalities and Satan's kingdom, and is strongly emphasized throughout the New Testament. Scripture declares that Jesus came to drive out "the prince of this world” (John 12:31), to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), to “destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14) and to “put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). Jesus came to overpower the “strong man” (Satan) who held the world in bondage and worked with his Church to plunder his "palace" (Luke 11:21-22). He came to end the reign of the cosmic “thief” who seized the world to “steal, and to kill, and to destroy” the life YHVH intended for us (John 10:10). Jesus came and died on the cross to disarm “the principalities and powers” and make a “shew of them openly [i.e., public spectacle]” by “triumphing over them in [the cross]” (Col. 2:15).
Beyond these explicit statements, there are many other passages that express the Christus Victor motif as well. For example, the first prophecy in the Bible foretells that a descendent of Eve (Jesus) would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The first Christian sermon ever preached proclaimed that Jesus in principle conquered all YHVH's enemies (Acts 2:32-36). And the single most frequently quoted Old Testament passage by New Testament authors is Psalm 110:1 which predicts that Christ would conquer all YHVH’s opponents. (Psalm 110 is quoted or alluded to in Matthew 22:41-45; 26:64, Mark 12:35-37; 14:62, Luke 20:41-44; 22:69, Acts 5:31; 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, 1st Corinthians 15:22-25, Ephesians 1:20, Hebrews 1:3; 1:13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; 8:1; 10:12-13, 1st Peter 3:22, and Revelation 3:21.) According to New Testament scholar Oscar Cullman, the frequency with which New Testament authors cite this Psalm is the greatest proof that Christ’s “victory over the angel powers stands at the very center of early Christian thought.”
Because of man's rebellion, the Messiah's coming involved a rescue mission that included a strategy for vanquishing the powers of darkness.
Since YHVH is a God of love who gives genuine “say-so” to both angels and humans, YHVH rarely accomplishes His providential plans through coercion. YHVH relies on His infinite wisdom to achieve His goals. Nowhere is YHVH's wisdom put more on display than in the manner in which He outsmarted Satan and the powers of evil, using their own evil to bring about their defeat.
Most readers probably know the famous story from ancient Greece about the Trojan Horse. To recap the story, Troy and Greece had been locked in a ten-year-long vicious war when, according to Homer and Virgil, the Greeks came up with a brilliant idea. They built an enormous wooden horse, hid soldiers inside and offered it to the Trojans as a gift, claiming they were conceding defeat and going home. The delighted Trojans accepted the gift and proceeded to celebrate by drinking themselves into a drunken stupor. When night came and the Trojan warriors were too wasted to fight, the Greeks exited the horse, unlocked the city gates to quietly let all their compatriots in, and easily conquered the city, thus winning the war.
Historians debate whether any of this actually happened. But either way, as military strategies go, it’s brilliant.
Now, there are five clues in the New Testament that suggest YHVH was using something like this Trojan Horse strategy against the powers when he sent Jesus into the world:
1) The Bible tells us that YHVH's victory over the powers of darkness was achieved by the employment of YHVH’s wisdom, and was centered on that wisdom having become reality in Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 3:9-10, Col. 1:26). It also tells us that, for some reason, this Christ-centered wisdom was kept “secret and hidden” throughout the ages. It’s clear from this that YHVH's strategy was to outsmart and surprise the powers by sending Jesus.
2) While humans don’t generally know Jesus’ true identity during his ministry, demons do. They recognize Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, but, interestingly enough, they have no idea what he’s doing (Mark 1:24; 3:11; 5:7, Luke 8:21). Again, the wisdom of YHVH in sending Jesus was hidden from them.
3) We’re told that, while humans certainly share in the responsibility for the crucifixion, Satan and the powers were working behind the scenes to bring it about (John 13:27 cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-8). These forces of evil helped orchestrate the crucifixion.
4) We’re taught that if the “princes of this world [age]” had understood the secret wisdom of YHVH, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8 cf. vss 6-7). Apparently, Satan and the powers regretted orchestrating Christ’s crucifixion once they learned of the wisdom of YHVH that was behind it.
5) Finally, we can begin to understand why the powers came to regret crucifying “the Lord of glory” when we read that it was by means of the crucifixion that the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us [i.e., the charge of our legal indebtedness]” was “[taken] out of the way [i.e., canceled]” as the powers were disarmed. In this way Christ “triumph[ed] over” the powers by "his cross” and even “made a shew of them openly” (Col. 2:14-15). Through Christ’s death and resurrection YHVH's enemies were vanquished and placed under his Messiah's feet, and ultimately His own in the end (1 Cor. 15:23-28).
Putting these five clues together, we can discern YHVH's Trojan Horse strategy in sending Jesus.
The powers couldn’t discern why Jesus came because YHVH's wisdom was hidden from them. YHVH's wisdom was motivated by unfathomable love, and since Satan and the other powers were evil, they lacked the capacity to understand it. Their evil hearts prevented them from suspecting what YHVH was up to.
What the powers did understand was that Jesus was mortal. This meant he was killable. Lacking the capacity to understand that this was the means by which YHVH would ultimately bring about the defeat of death (and thus, pave the road for the resurrection itself), they never suspected that making Jesus vulnerable to their evil might actually be part of YHVH's infinitely wise plan.
And so they took the bait (or "ransom"; Matt. 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim. 2:5-6). Utilizing Judas and other willing human agents, the powers played right into YHVH’s secret plan and orchestrated the crucifixion of the Messiah (Acts 2:22-23; 4:28). YHVH thus brilliantly used the self-inflicted incapacity of evil to understand love against itself. And, like light dispelling darkness, the unfathomably beautiful act of YHVH's love in sending the willing Messiah as a "ransom" to these blood-thirsty powers defeated them. The whole creation was in principle freed and reconciled to YHVH, while everything written against us humans was nailed to the cross, thus robbing the powers of the only legal claim they had on us. They were “spoiled [i.e., disempowered]” (Col. 2:14-15).
As happened to the Trojans in accepting the gift from the Greeks, in seizing on Christ’s vulnerability and orchestrating his crucifixion, the powers unwittingly cooperated with YHVH to unleash the one power in the world that dispels all evil and sets captives free. It’s the power of self-sacrificial love.

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

For the sake of keeping this already lengthy post as short as possible I'm not going to spend too much time on why exactly PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) is inconsistent with Scripture, but I'll go ahead and point out the main reasons why I believe this is so, and let the reader look further into this subject by themselves, being that there are many resources out there which have devoted much more time than I ever could here in supporting this premise.

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:"-1 Corinthians 5:7

The Passover is one of the two most prominent images in the New Testament given as a comparison to Christ's atonement and what it accomplished, (the other most common image being the Day of Atonement sacrifice).
In the Passover, the blood of the lamb on the door posts of the Hebrews in the book of Exodus was meant to mark out those who were YHVH's, not be a symbol of PSA, as the lamb itself was not being punished by God in place of the Hebrews, but rather the kingdom of Egypt (and thus, allegorically speaking, the kingdom of darkness which opposed YHVH) was what was being judged and punished, because those who were not "covered" by the blood of the lamb could be easily identified as not part of God's kingdom/covenant and liberated people.
Looking at the Day of Atonement sacrifice (which, again, Christ's death is repeatedly compared to throughout the New Testament), this ritual required a ram, a bull, and two goats (Lev. 16:3-5). The ram was for a burnt offering intended to please God (Lev. 16:3-4). The bull served as a sin offering for Aaron, the high priest, and his family. In this case, the sin offering restored the priest to ritual purity, allowing him to occupy sacred space and be near YHVH’s presence. Two goats taken from "the congregation” were needed for the single sin offering for the people (Lev. 16:5). So why two goats?
The high priest would cast lots over the two goats, with one chosen as a sacrifice “for the Lord” (Lev. 16:8). The blood of that goat would purify the people. The second goat was not sacrificed or designated “for the Lord.” On the contrary, this goat—the one that symbolically carried the sins away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness—was “for Azazel” (Lev. 16:8-10).
What—or who—is Azazel?
The Hebrew term azazel (עזאזל) occurs four times in Leviticus 16 but nowhere else in most people's canon of the Bible, (and I say "most people's canon," because some people do include 1 Enoch in their canon of Scripture, which of course goes into great detail about this "Azazel" figure). Many translations prefer to translate the term as a phrase, “the goat that goes away,” which is the same idea conveyed in the King James Version’s “scapegoat.” Other translations treat the word as a name: Azazel. The “scapegoat” option is possible, but since the phrase “for Azazel” parallels the phrase “for YHVH” (“for the Lord”), the wording suggests that two divine figures are being contrasted by the two goats.
A strong case can be made for translating the term as the name Azazel. Ancient Jewish texts show that Azazel was understood as a demonic figure associated with the wilderness. The Mishnah (ca. AD 200; Yoma 6:6) records that the goat for Azazel was led to a cliff and pushed over, ensuring it would not return with its death. This association of the wilderness with evil is also evident in the New Testament, as this was where Jesus met the devil (Matt. 4:1). Also, in Leviticus 17:1-7 we learn that some Israelites had been accustomed to sacrificing offerings to "devils" (alternatively translated as “goat demons”). The Day of Atonement replaced this illegitimate practice.
The second goat was not sent into the wilderness as a sacrifice to a foreign god or demon. The act of sending the live goat out into the wilderness, which was unholy ground, was to send the sins of the people where they belonged—to the demonic domain. With one goat sacrificed to bring purification and access to YHVH and one goat sent to carry the people’s sins to the demonic domain, this annual ritual reinforced the identity of the true God and His mercy and holiness.
When Jesus died on the cross for all of humanity’s sins, he was crucified outside the city, paralleling the sins of the people being cast to the wilderness via the goat to Azazel. Jesus died once for all sinners, negating the need for this ritual.
As previously stated, the goat which had all the sin put on it was sent alive off to the wilderness, while the blood of the goat which was blameless was used to purify the temple and the people. Penal substitution would necessitate the killing of the goat which had the sin put on it.
Mind you, this is the only sacrificial ritual of any kind in the Torah in which sins are placed on an animal. The only time it happens is this, and that animal is not sacrificed. Most PSA proponents unwittingly point to this ritual as evidence of their view, despite it actually serving as evidence to the contrary, because most people don't read their Old Testament and don't familiarize themselves with the "boring parts" like Leviticus (when it's actually rather important to do so, since that book explains how exactly animal offerings were to be carried out and why they were done in the first place).
In the New Testament, Christ's blood was not only meant to mark out those who were his, but also expel the presence of sin and ritual uncleanness so as to make the presence of YHVH manifest in the believer's life. Notice how God's wrath isn't poured out on Christ in our stead on this view, but rather His wrath was poured out on those who weren't covered, and the presence of sin and evil were merely removed by that which is pure and blameless (Christ's blood) for the believer.
All this is the difference between expiation and propitiation.

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

When the New Testament writers talked about “the gospel,” they referred not to the Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide–the proposition that if we will stop trying to win God’s favor and only just believe that God has exchanged our sin for Christ’s perfect righteousness, then in God’s eyes we will have the perfect righteousness required both for salvation and for assuaging our guilty consciences–but rather they referred to the simple but explosive proposition Kyrios Christos, “Christ is Lord.” That is to say, the gospel was, properly speaking, the royal announcement that Jesus of Nazareth was the God of Israel’s promised Messiah, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
The New Testament writers were not writing in a cultural or linguistic vacuum and their language of euangelion (good news) and euangelizomai would have been understood by their audience in fairly specific ways. Namely, in the Greco-Roman world for which the New Testament authors wrote, euangelion/euangelizomai language typically had to do with either A) the announcement of the accession of a ruler, or B) the announcement of a victory in battle, and would probably have been understood along those lines.
Let’s take the announcements of a new ruler first. The classic example of such a language is the Priene Calendar Inscription, dating to circa 9 BC, which celebrates the rule (and birthday) of Caesar Augustus as follows:
"It was seeming to the Greeks in Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: Since Providence, which has ordered all things of our life and is very much interested in our life, has ordered things in sending Augustus, whom she filled with virtue for the benefit of men, sending him as a savior [soter] both for us and for those after us, him who would end war and order all things, and since Caesar by his appearance [epiphanein] surpassed the hopes of all those who received the good tidings [euangelia], not only those who were benefactors before him, but even the hope among those who will be left afterward, and the birthday of the god [he genethlios tou theou] was for the world the beginning of the good tidings [euangelion] through him; and Asia resolved it in Smyrna."
The association of the term euangelion with the announcement of Augustus’ rule is clear enough and is typical of how this language is used elsewhere. To give another example, Josephus records that at the news of the accession of the new emperor Vespasian (69 AD) “every city kept festival for the good news (euangelia) and offered sacrifices on his behalf.” (The Jewish War, IV.618). Finally, a papyrus dating to ca. 498 AD begins:
"Since I have become aware of the good news (euangeliou) about the proclamation as Caesar (of Gaius Julius Verus Maximus Augustus)…"
This usage occurs also in the Septuagint, the Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures. For instance LXX Isaiah 52:7 reads, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news (euangelizomenou), who publishes peace, who brings good news (euangelizomenos) of salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.'" Similarly, LXX Isaiah 40:9-10 reads:

"…Go up on a high mountain, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos) to Sion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos); lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Ioudas, “See your God!” Behold, the Lord comes with strength, and his arm with authority (kyrieias)…."-NETS, Esaias 40:9-10

This consistent close connection between euangelion/euangelizomai language and announcements of rule strongly suggests that many of the initial hearers/readers of the early Christians’ evangelical language would likely have understood that language as the announcement of a new ruler (see, e.g., Acts 17:7), and, unless there is strong NT evidence to the contrary, we should presume that the NT writers probably intended their language to be so understood.
However, the other main way in which euangelion/euangelizomai language was used in the Greco-Roman world was with reference to battle reports, announcements of victory in war. A classic example of this sort of usage can be found in LXX 2 Samuel 18:19ff, where David receives word that his traitorous son, Absalom, has been defeated in battle. Euangelion/euangelizomai is used throughout the passage for the communications from the front.
As already shown throughout this post, the NT speaks of Jesus’s death and resurrection as a great victory over the powers that existed at that time and, most importantly, over death itself. Jesus’ conquest of the principalities and powers was the establishment of his rule and comprehensive authority over heaven and earth, that is, of his Lordship over all things (again, at that time).
This was the content of Paul's gospel message...

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

The following quotation is from The Gospel Coalition, and I believe it to be a decently accurate summary of the NPP (New Perspective on Paul), despite it being from a source which is in opposition to it:

The New Perspective on Paul, a major scholarly shift that began in the 1980s, argues that the Jewish context of the New Testament has been wrongly understood and that this misunderstand[ing] has led to errors in the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification. According to the New Perspective, the Jewish systems of salvation were not based on works-righteousness but rather on covenantal nomism, the belief that one enters the people of God by grace and stays in through obedience to the covenant. This means that Paul could not have been referring to works-righteousness by his phrase “works of the law”; instead, he was referring to Jewish boundary markers that made clear who was or was not within the people of God. For the New Perspective, this is the issue that Paul opposes in the NT. Thus, justification takes on two aspects for the New Perspective rather than one; initial justification is by faith (grace) and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.

I believe what's called the "new perspective" is actually rather old, and that the Reformers' view of Paul is what is truly new, being that the Lutheran understanding of Paul is simply not Biblical.
The Reformation perspective understands Paul to be arguing against a legalistic Jewish culture that seeks to earn their salvation through works. However, supporters of the NPP argue that Paul has been misread. We contend he was actually combating Jews who were boasting because they were God's people, the "elect" or the "chosen ones." Their "works," so to speak, were done to show they were God's covenant people and not to earn their salvation.
The key questions involve Paul’s view(s) of the law and the meaning of the controversy in which Paul was engaged. Paul strongly argued that we are “justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16b). Since the time of Martin Luther, this has been understood as an indictment of legalistic efforts to merit favor before God. Judaism was cast in the role of the medieval "church," and so Paul’s protests became very Lutheran, with traditional-Protestant theology reinforced in all its particulars (along with its limitations) as a result. In hermeneutical terms, then, the historical context of Paul’s debate will answer the questions we have about what exactly the apostle meant by the phrase "works of the law," along with other phrases often used as support by the Reformers for their doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), like when Paul mentions "the righteousness of God."
Obviously an in-depth analysis of the Pauline corpus and its place in the context of first-century Judaism would take us far beyond the scope of this brief post. We can, however, quickly survey the topography of Paul’s thought in context, particularly as it has emerged through the efforts of recent scholarship, and note some salient points which may be used as the basis of a refurbished soteriology.
[Note: The more popular scholars associated with the NPP are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Dunn was the first to coin the term "The New Perspective" in a 1983 Manson Memorial Lecture, The New Perspective on Paul and the Law.]
Varying authors since the early 1900's have brought up the charge that Paul was misread by those in the tradition of Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers. Yet, it wasn't until E.P. Sanders' 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, that scholars began to pay much attention to the issue. In his book, Sanders argues that the Judaism of Paul's day has been wrongly criticized as a religion of "works-salvation" by those in the Protestant tradition.
A fundamental premise in the NPP is that Judaism was actually a religion of grace. Sander's puts it clearly:
"On the point at which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism - grace and works - Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism... Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works'...God saves by grace, but... within the framework established by grace he rewards good deeds and punishes transgression." (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 543)
N.T. Wright adds that, "we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism," (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 32).
Sanders has coined a now well-known phrase to describe the character of first-century Palestinian Judaism: “covenantal nomism.” The meaning of “covenantal nomism” is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.
If covenantal nomism was operating as the primary category under which Jews understood the Law, then when Jews spoke of obeying commandments, or when they required strict obedience of themselves and fellow Jews, it was because they were "keeping the covenant," rather than out of legalism.
More recently, N.T. Wright has made a significant contribution in his little book, What Saint Paul Really Said. Wright’s focus is the gospel and the doctrine of justification. With incisive clarity he demonstrates that the core of Paul’s gospel was not justification by faith, but the death and resurrection of Christ and his exaltation as Lord. The proclamation of the gospel was the proclamation of Jesus as Lord, the Messiah who fulfilled Israel’s expectations. Romans 1:3-4, not 1:16-17, is the gospel, contrary to traditional thinking. Justification is not the center of Paul’s thought, but an outworking of it:
"[T]he doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’. It is implied by the gospel; when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter, the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ….Let us be quite clear. ‘The gospel’ is the announcement of Jesus’ lordship, which works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him. ‘Justification’ is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other." (pp. 132, 133)
Wright brings us to this point by showing what “justification” would have meant in Paul’s Jewish context, bound up as it was in law-court terminology, eschatology, and God’s faithfulness to God’s covenant.
Specifically, Wright explodes the myth that the pre-Christian Saul was a pious, proto-Pelagian moralist seeking to earn his individual passage into heaven. Wright capitalizes on Paul’s autobiographical confessions to paint rather a picture of a zealous Jewish nationalist whose driving concern was to cleanse Israel of Gentiles as well as Jews who had lax attitudes toward the Torah. Running the risk of anachronism, Wright points to a contemporary version of the pre-Christian Saul: Yigal Amir, the zealous Torah-loyal Jew who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for exchanging Israel’s land for peace. Wright writes:
"Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in an abstract, ahistorical system of salvation... They were interested in the salvation which, they believed, the one true God had promised to his people Israel." (pp. 32, 33)
Wright maintains that as a Christian, Paul continued to challenge paganism by taking the moral high ground of the creational monotheist. The doctrine of justification was not what Paul preached to the Gentiles as the main thrust of his gospel message; it was rather “the thing his converts most needed to know in order to be assured that they really were part of God’s people” after they had responded to the gospel message.
Even while taking the gospel to the Gentiles, however, Paul continued to criticize Judaism “from within” even as he had as a zealous Pharisee. But whereas his mission before was to root out those with lax attitudes toward the Torah, now his mission was to demonstrate that God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness) has already been revealed in Jesus Christ.
At this point Wright carefully documents Paul’s use of the controversial phrase “God’s righteousness” and draws out the implications of his meaning against the background of a Jewish concept of justification. The righteousness of God and the righteousness of the party who is “justified” cannot be confused because the term bears different connotations for the judge than for the plaintiff or defendant. The judge is “righteous” if his or her judgment is fair and impartial; the plaintiff or defendant is “righteous” if the judge rules in his or her favor. Hence:
"If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. For the judge to be righteous does not mean that the court has found in his favor. For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous does not mean that he or she has tried the case properly or impartially. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works." (p. 98)
However, Wright makes the important observation that even with the forensic metaphor, Paul’s theology is not so much about the courtroom as it is about God’s love.
Righteousness is not an impersonal, abstract standard, a measuring-stick or a balancing scale. That was, and still is, a Greek view. Righteousness, Biblically speaking, grows out of covenant relationship. We forgive because we have been forgiven (Matt. 18:21-35); “we love" because God “first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10, Gal 5:14, Jam. 2:8). Paul even looked forward to a day when “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10), and he acknowledged that his clear conscience did not necessarily ensure this verdict (1 Cor. 4:4), but he was confident nevertheless. Paul did in fact testify of his clear conscience: “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation [i.e., behavior] in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” (2 Cor. 1:12). He was aware that he had not yet “attained” (Phil. 3:12-14), that he still struggled with the flesh, yet he was confident of the value of his performance (1 Cor. 9:27). These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account.
Wright went on to flesh out the doctrine of justification in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. The “works of the law” are not proto-Pelagian efforts to earn salvation, but rather “sabbath [keeping], food-laws, circumcision” (p. 132). Considering the controversy in Galatia, Wright writes:
"Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God….The problem he addresses is: should his ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not? Now this question is by no means obviously to do with the questions faced by Augustine and Pelagius, or by Luther and Erasmus. On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way? Circumcision is not a ‘moral’ issue; it does not have to do with moral effort, or earning salvation by good deeds. Nor can we simply treat it as a religious ritual, then designate all religious ritual as crypto-Pelagian good works, and so smuggle Pelagius into Galatia as the arch-opponent after all. First-century thought, both Jewish and Christian, simply doesn’t work like that…. [T]he polemic against the Torah in Galatians simply will not work if we ‘translate’ it into polemic either against straightforward self-help moralism or against the more subtle snare of ‘legalism’, as some have suggested. The passages about the law only work — and by ‘work’ I mean they will only make full sense in their contexts, which is what counts in the last analysis — when we take them as references to the Jewish law, the Torah, seen as the national charter of the Jewish race." (pp. 120-122)
The debate about justification, then, “wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.” (p. 119)
To summarize the theology of Paul in his epistles, the apostle mainly spent time arguing to those whom he were sending letters that salvation in Christ was available to all men without distinction. Jews and Gentiles alike may accept the free gift; it was not limited to any one group. Paul was vehement about this, especially in his letter to the Romans. As such, I will finish this post off by summarizing the letter itself, so as to provide Biblical support for the premises of the NPP and for what the scholars I referenced have thus far argued.
After his introduction in the epistle to an already believing and mostly Gentile audience (who would've already been familiar with the gospel proclaimed in verses 3-4), Paul makes a thematic statement in 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” This statement is just one of many key statements littered throughout the book of Romans that give us proper understanding of the point Paul wished to make to the interlocutors of his day, namely, salvation is available to all, whether Jew or Gentile.
In 1:16 Paul sets out a basic theme of his message in the letter to the Romans. All who believed, whether they be Jew or Gentile, were saved by the power of the gospel. The universal nature of salvation was explicitly stated. The gospel saved all without distinction, whether Jew or Greek; salvation was through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Immediately after this thematic declaration, Paul undertakes to show the universal nature of sin and guilt. In 1:18-32 Paul shows how the Gentile is guilty before God. Despite evidence of God and his attributes, which is readily available to all, they have failed to honor YHVH as God and have exchanged His glory for idolatrous worship and self-promotion. As a consequence, God handed them over in judgment (1:18-32). Paul moves to denunciation of those who would judge others while themselves being guilty of the very same offenses (2:1-5) and argues that all will be judged according to their deeds (2:6). This judgment applies to all, namely, Jew and Greek (2:9-10). This section serves as somewhat of a transition in Paul’s argument. He has highlighted the guilt of the Gentiles (1:18ff) and will shortly outline the guilt of the Jew (2:17-24). The universal statement of 2:1-11 sets the stage for Paul’s rebuke of Jewish presumption. It was not possession of the Law which delivered; it was faithful obedience. It is better to have no Law and yet to obey the essence of the Law (2:12-16) than to have the Law and not obey (2:17-3:4). Paul then defends the justice of God’s judgment (3:5-8), which leads to the conclusion that all (Jew and Gentile) are guilty before God (3:9).
Paul argues that it was a mistaken notion to think that salvation was the prerogative of the Jew only. This presumption is wrong for two reasons. First, it leads to the mistaken assumption that only Jews were eligible for this vindication (Paul deals with this misunderstanding in chapter 4 where he demonstrates that Abraham was justified by faith independently of the Law and is therefore the father of all who believe, Jew and Gentile alike). Second, it leads to the equally mistaken conclusion that all who were Jews are guaranteed of vindication. Paul demonstrates how this perspective, which would call God’s integrity into question since Paul was assuming many Jews would not experience this vindication, was misguided. He did this by demonstrating that it was never the case that all physical descendants of Israel (Jacob) were likewise recipients of the promise. In the past (9:6-33) as in the present (at that time; 11:1-10), only a remnant was preserved and only a remnant would experience vindication. Paul also argued that the unbelief of national Israel (the non-remnant) had the purpose of extending the compass of salvation. The unbelief of one group made the universal scope of the gospel possible. This universalism was itself intended to bring about the vindication of the unbelieving group (11:11-16). As a result of faith, all (Jew and Gentile) could be branches of the olive tree (11:17-24). Since faith in Christ was necessary to remain grafted into the tree, no one could boast of his position. All, Jew and Gentile alike, were dependent upon the mercy and grace of God. As a result of God’s mysterious plan, He would bring about the vindication of His people (11:25-27). [Note: It is this author's belief that this vindication occurred around 66-70 AD, with the Parousia of Christ's Church; this author is Full-Preterist in their Eschatology.]

Ini adalah cerita tentang pasien nomor sembilan yang datang padaku murni sebagai pesakitan. Allsya, remaja yang terlahir dari keluarga berada tapi tak bisa menikmati bahagia. Ditempa oleh keadaan yang memaksanya untuk dewasa sebelum waktunya. Diusianya yang masih belia ia mencari tentang keadilan, perbedaan laki-laki dan perempuan, dan pembedaan perlakuan. Ketika di penghujung SMP--masa sibuknya ujian, berhasil menemukan jawaban. Patriarki. Selain dari buku yang dibacanya, ia juga mendapatkan pemahaman dari Ersya--mahasiswa yang sedang KKN di desanya. Menjalin kedekatan. Mengajari banyak hal setiap malam, berbagi perhatian, dan juga memberi perlindungan layaknya sepasang kakak-beradik. Tiga bulan sudah, tiba masanya Ersya harus pulang. Tugasnya telah usai dan harus kembali menyelesaikan studynya di kota asal. Tentu saja Allsya tak baik-baik saja setelah perpisahan. Terciptanya kebersamaan membuatnya merasa kehilangan. Terlebih ketika mimpinya dipaksa mati oleh sang ayah dengan jeratan sebuah perjodohan. Ketika ia datang padaku memberanikan diri bercerita tentang sekelumit hidupnya sebagai upaya penyembuhan diri, maka mata hatiku merubah cara pandang tentangnya. Menebas segala prasangka yang sempat tercipta karena kesaksianku yang tidak utuh. Keputusannya datang padaku adalah momentum terbaik untuk melengkapi bagian rumpang yang sering mengundang pikiran yang bukan-bukan serta kesimpulan tanpa rujukan. Namun secara tidak langsung ia mengajakku bermain-main dalam labirinnya. Bahkan bukan lagi bersifat ajakan melainkan paksaan karena ini menyangkut tanggung jawab profesi. Baiklah, dengan bantuan diary sebagai saksi bisu sang pemiliknya yang dibiarkan aku baca, kesaksian seorang lelaki yang sangat kupuja, serta mataku sendiri yang menyaksikan beberapa bagian hidupnya, aku susun benang merah dari hidup seorang pasien nomor sembilan. Silahkan, saksikan saja kinerjaku ini! Read more

The following events happened on this day in history!

• 05/21/1983 - Mid-South Wrestling - Mid-South Wrestling S1983E21
  
• 05/21/1983 - Mid-Atlantic Championship Wrestling - Mid-Atlantic Championship Wrestling S1983E141
  
• 05/21/1983 - WCCW - WCCW S1983E141
  
• 05/21/1984 - Old School - Madison Square Garden - 5/21/1984 S1984E5
  
• 05/21/1986 - Tuesday Night Titans - Mean Gene hosts a special magic show TNT S1986E21
  
• 05/21/1988 - WCCW - World Class Championship Wrestling S1988E142
  
• 05/21/1988 - World Championship Wrestling - World Championship Wrestling S1988E142
  
• 05/21/1988 - WCCW - WCCW S1988E142
  
• 05/21/1994 - Superstars - Superstars S1994E21
  
• 05/21/1995 - Slamboree - Slamboree 1995 S1995E1
  
• 05/21/1996 - ECW Hardcore TV - ECW Hardcore TV S1996E21
  
• 05/21/1998 - WCW Thunder - WCW Thunder S1998E20
  
• 05/21/2000 - Judgment Day - Judgment Day 2000 S2000E1
  
• 05/21/2001 - Raw - Raw S2001E21
  
• 05/21/2006 - Judgment Day - Judgment Day 2006 S2006E1
  
• 05/21/2007 - Raw - Raw S2007E21
  
• 05/21/2010 - SmackDown - SmackDown S2010E21
  
• 05/21/2012 - Raw - Raw S2012E21
  
• 05/21/2014 - WWE.coms 5 Things - Five Acts of Payback S2014E15
  
• 05/21/2015 - SmackDown - SmackDown S2015E21
  
• 05/21/2015 - Too Hot for TV Presented by Jerry Springer - All in the Family S1E4
  
• 05/21/2015 - WWE Top 10 - Top 10 WWE SmackDown Moments: May 21, 2015 S2015E58
  
• 05/21/2015 - WWE NXT - Exclusive: Kevin Owens keeps his word
  
• 05/21/2015 - WWE NXT - Exclusive: Zack Ryder stops by NXT
  
• 05/21/2015 - WWE NXT - Baron Corbin believes hes the Unstoppable Force
  
• 05/21/2015 - WWE NXT - Exclusive: Tyler Breeze videos his own entrance
  
• 05/21/2015 - WWE NXT - Finn B lor is ready for his next challenge
  
• 05/21/2016 - This Week in WWE - May 21, 2016 S2016E21
  
• 05/21/2016 - WWE Top 10 - Wildest Extreme Rules Moments S2016E60
  
• 05/21/2017 - Talking Smack - Talking Smack: Backlash 2017 S2017E1
  
• 05/21/2017 - Backlash - Backlash 2017 Kickoff Show
  
• 05/21/2017 - Backlash - Backlash 2017 S2017E1
  
• 05/21/2017 - WWE Talking Smack - WWE Talking Smack: Backlash 2017 S2017E1
  
• 05/21/2017 - Backlash - The Usos arent into playing games: WWE.com Exclus
  
• 05/21/2017 - Backlash - AJ Styles questions his future status: WWE.com Exc
  
• 05/21/2017 - Backlash - Jinder Mahals first message as new WWE Champion:
  
• 05/21/2017 - Backlash - Shinsuke Nakamura educates Dolph Ziggler: WWE.com
  
• 05/21/2017 - Backlash - Charlotte Flair is all smiles en route to WWE Back
  
• 05/21/2017 - Backlash - Dolph Ziggler makes it clear how he plans to overc
  
• 05/21/2017 - Backlash - Becky Lynch greets the WWE Universe outside Chicag
  
• 05/21/2017 - WWE NXT - A devastated Johnny Gargano is loaded into an ambu
  
• 05/21/2017 - WWE NXT - Hideo Itami goes ballistic following loss to NXT C
  
• 05/21/2017 - WWE NXT - NXT Champion Bobby Roode looks forward to some tim
  
• 05/21/2017 - WWE NXT - New WWE United Kingdom Champion Pete Dunne gets ph
  
• 05/21/2018 - Raw - Raw S2018E21
  
• 05/21/2018 - Table For 3 - TLC Icons S4E3
  
• 05/21/2018 - WWE Top 10 - Biggest Wall-Busters S2018E80
  
• 05/21/2018 - Raw - The B-Teams post-match celebration continues: WWE
  
• 05/21/2018 - Raw - Ember Moons dawn approaches at WWE Money in the B
  
• 05/21/2018 - Raw - Jinder Mahal vows to take Roman Reigns yard: WWE.
  
• 05/21/2018 - Raw - Lince Dorado needs a shave: WWE.com Exclusive, May
  
• 05/21/2018 - Raw - Natalya might forget her manners at WWE Money in t
  
• 05/21/2018 - WWE Now - 6 Things To Know Before Tonights Raw: 05-21-18 S2018E114
  
• 05/21/2019 - 205 Live - 205 Live S2019E21
  
• 05/21/2019 - SmackDown - SmackDown S2019E21
  
• 05/21/2019 - Miz & Mrs. - Miz Fest S1E14
  
• 05/21/2019 - SmackDown - The Singh Brothers plan to capture the 24/7 title
  
• 05/21/2019 - SmackDown - Otis has trouble focusing on the 24/7 Championship
  
• 05/21/2019 - SmackDown - Women s Champions join forces for tag team action
  
• 05/21/2019 - SmackDown - Matt Hardy sends an official to find R-Truth
  
• 05/21/2019 - SmackDown - Mandy Rose isn t finished with Carmella yet
  
• 05/21/2019 - SmackDown - How is Finn B lor feeling after Money in the Bank?
  
• 05/21/2019 - SmackDown - Wherever Becky Lynch goes, Lacey Evans will follow
  
• 05/21/2019 - WWE Now - 5 Things to Know Before SmackDown LIVE S2019E106
  
• 05/21/2020 - WWE Playlist - Asukas Momentous Victories 2020
  
• 05/21/2020 - The Best of WWE - Best of Asuka s Undefeated Streak S2020E28
  
• 05/21/2020 - WWE Now - Otis and Braun Delight with SmackDown Truce 2020
  
• 05/21/2020 - NXT UK - WWE NXT UK S2020E21
  
• 05/21/2020 - WWE Top 10 - Top 10 NXT Moments: May 20, 2020 2020
  
• 05/21/2020 - This Week in WWE - May 21, 2020 S2020E21
  
• 05/21/2020 - WWE Main Event - WWE Main Event S2020E21
  
• 05/21/2020 - Total Bellas - Off the Deep End S5E8
  
• 05/21/2020 - After the Bell with Corey Graves - Seth Rollins S2020E21
  
• 05/21/2021 - WWE Now - Everything to know before SmackDown: May 21, 2021 S2021E70
  
• 05/21/2021 - 205 Live - 205 Live S2021E21
  
• 05/21/2021 - WWE Playlist - The Reign of King Booker 2021
  
• 05/21/2021 - SmackDown - Behind the scenes of Natalya & Tamina s title win
  
• 05/21/2021 - SmackDown - SmackDown S2021E21
  
• 05/21/2021 - SmackDown - King of Strong Style needs Corbin s crown
  
• 05/21/2021 - SmackDown - Rey and Dominik will be ready for all challengers
  
• 05/21/2021 - SmackDown - Nia & Shayna react to title match this Monday
  
• 05/21/2021 - wXw We Love Wrestling - wXw We Love Wrestling #13 S2021E11
  
• 05/21/2022 - ICW Fight Club - Fight Club S2022E18
  
• 05/21/2022 - wXw We Love Wrestling - wXw We Love Wrestling #29 S2022E3
  
• 05/21/2022 - WWE Talking Smack - May 21, 2022 S2022E19
  
• 05/21/2022 - WWE Top 10 - Top 10 SmackDown Moments: May 20, 2022 2022
  
• 05/21/2023 - WWE Top 10 - Rhea Ripley Wrecking Male Superstars 2023
  

What event was your favorite in this list?

I've not had Roman or Rock appear since the Raw/SD after WM, Roman left Solo in charge, said he wanted the Bloodline to be bigger than ever by the time he came back.
Solo has since recruited Nia Jax and Jacob Fatu, alongside him and Jimmy and Heyman.
Rock left by telling Cody their story is just beginning, similar to real life.
I'm now almost at SummerSlam. My plan was to have Rhodes regain the title from Gunther, then afterwards have Rock appear and challenge Rhodes at Survivor Series, where it all began for the Rock.
I was then going to have Reigns return in that main event and cost the Rock the title, unsure of whether on purpose or not yet, but now I'm not really feeling that whole storyline now.
Any other suggestions of how I get Rock and Roman back and build to a WM match with Roman as a face? I want them away from the title as I'm going to go with Punk/Rhodes at mania.

So this this story starts in January and the royal rumble is upon us a grueling battle royal ends up with Gunther and Ludwig Kaiser as the final two. Gunther wants Kaiser to leave and forfeit the match and give Gunther the win ‘for imperium’ Kaiser says no and hits Gunther. Close calls see both men being potentially eliminated, but Gunther prevails. HE GOING TO WRESTLEMANIA while injuring Kaiser after the match just to be sure no one can get in his way.
MONDAYS FINALLY HERE AND GUNTHER ANNOUNCES HIS OPPONENT FOR WRESTLEMANIA. Ofc he picks Cody for their history in the rumble the buildup for mania is immaculate promos are being cut brawls are breaking out, but here comes elimination chamber.
Elimination chamber sees Roman reigns versus Cody Rhodes for the undisputed WWE championship no bloodline involved because they were exiled by Nick aldius back in august right before summer slam. Another classic Cody and Roman battle happens at elimination chamber, but it is cut short by a man who is covered in black with a mask on, he shows with three other men. Micheal Cole announces these mysterious men as the ‘masked men’ ruled by disqualification Cody retains. Both Roman and Cody laid out in the middle ring by four men whose identities are unknown.
The following Monday night raw, Gunther cuts another promo. But as he’s cutting his promo all of a sudden those same masked men come out and attack Gunther. Gunther is injured. Triple H and Cody Rhodes struggle for weeks as wrestlemania approaches closer to find an opponent for Cody. On a random Monday night triple H declares that, “there will be no undisputed WWE championship match at wrestlemania.” Cody Rose angered at this quickly begs for Triple H to find something. Triple h tells Cody if he can find an opponent then he’ll be able to have a match at mania but until further notice his match is cancelled. Cody stays up all night and returns to Friday night SmackDown with a brilliant idea. Cody’s bright idea is that he’ll take the four main contenders for his title and put them in a fatal four-way match on the main event of wrestlemania Saturday to determine his pon that he’ll take the four main contenders for his title and put them in a fatal four-way match on the main event of wrestlemania Saturday to determine his opponent for Sunday night.
But who are the top four contenders. They are; Seth Rollins, Roman reigns, uncle howdy (whose should have returned by now) and none other than the infamous masked man who has been wreaking havoc on WWE. All four of these men agree on the match for Saturday night.
WRESTLEMANIA NIGHT 1: All four men make their interests and enter the room ready for battle in this great fatal four-way match. Cody Rhodes way backstage ready to see his opponent for tomorrow. Roman goes after howdy while Rollins goes after the masked man, which led turned out to be a mistake because in a fatal four-way match there are no disqualifications and the mask man goons get involved. The fight between Roman reigns and uncle Howdy goes into the crowd and the mask man follows them and leaves Rollins in the ring alone. Howdy and the mask, man team up and take out reigns but quickly turn on each other. The fight get taken back to the ring, and the beating continues. The mask man in reigns hits their finishers. On uncle Howdy and Rollins in the closing minutes of the match. The masked man has already stopped Roman from being at the top again, so this could be payback. A stare down between the two happens. And they fight, but not until the masked man goons get involved and holds Roman down. The mask man in a thrilling moment, reveals himself as the final boss. Roman shocked, also sees the other mask men as solo Sikoa, Tama Tonga, and Tama loa. The Rock rock bottoms him and then people elbows him. The count starts 1…2…3. The rock is facing Cody Rhodes Sunday night.
BOOM RATE THIS STORYLINE.

enjoying universe mode a lot this year, but one thing really annoyed me right now which was cashing in the MITB. So CM punk made his surprise return at and won the MITB, and the plan was for him to cash it on Roman after he beat Cody in the main event. This is when the disappointment kicked in.
I tried to set up a manual cash in, but then I find out you cant cash in on PPVs?? Who tf made that decision at 2K. One of the best wrestlemania moment was literally Seth cashing in the MITB yet I can only cash in on a smackdown or raw?? i let it be and thought f it i’ll just let him cash it in on smackdown. So i finally set up the rivalry and chose the ‘post match attack’. Roman beats LA in a 5 star match (due to sliders) and Punks music hits, he hits Roman from the back and match starts. Now idk why I thought the person cashing in would have a finisher stored, but Punk didn’t which tbh again is very stupid because in every cash in i’ve seen in real life the first thing that happens is the MITB holder hitting the finisher and winning. So now its turned into a full on match which lasted like 10 minutes & I finally won with Punk but it was sooooo underwhelming. Like i was so hyped with the CM Punk angle but it was pretty badly done and 2K should really update how cashing in works. Like there should definitely be a cut scene where someone cashes in and wins so you don’t actually have to play a match, and 10000% being allowed to cash in on a PPV coz how is that not even a thing. anyway rant over just had to get it off my chest