For far too long, the Earth has been lied to by the Catholic Asswipers whose goal has been to suck as much money as possible out of the Sheep....er, I mean "faithful".
The following is true and factual information and can be found in your fambly Bible, or anywhere on the internet where there are discussions about the original Old and New Testament writings dating from the 1st-century AD and BEFORE.
1. Jesus Was Not Born In A Stable:
There is not a single reference to a stable in ANY authorized Gospel. There is no mention of an ox, an ass, nor any of the creatures commonly depicted as hanging around a 'manger', crapping on the straw, drooling as they absent-mindedly munch on their feed, or hay, or whatever the fuck they ate back then.
Only 2 of the Four Gospels (Matthew and Luke) mention this event, while Mark and John do not mention it at all.
It plainly says in Matthew 2:11 that the location of Jesus's birth was a house.
The notion of Jesus being born in some kind of stable or other farmyard outbuilding derives from a single statement in 2:7 that says Mary laid him in a "manger, because there was no room in the Inn". But a manger is not a 'building', it is an animal feeding box. Thus the concept of an animal shed being where he was born was derived solely from the above verse, while ignoring the fact that Matthew specified the location as "a house".
As for the supposed "inn", the word "inn" was a corrupt translation. Such buildings or 'businesses' were unknown in the Middle East at that time, where it was common to invite travelers into one's home, and was regarded as a pious duty to do so.
The actual verse in the original Greek read there was "no topos in the kataluma, that is, "there was "no place in the room". Back then it was quite common for mangers to be used as substitute cradles when no actual ones were available.
Not only that, but back in the day, animals were not kept in separate buildings. They were kept in a separate room of the house.
Most modern authorities believe the notion of him being born or being kept in some feed-box surrounded by animals was just meant to demonstrate his humble beginnings.
2. The Date
Matthew and Luke disagree on the date this happened.
Matthew 2:3 states it happened while Herod reigned in Judea. Then, by stating in Matthew 2:22 that the king's son was Archaelus, the Herod in question can be seen as Herod I The Great, who died in the year 4 B.C.
Luke 2:1-2 claims Jesus was born in the year of the Judean census of Emperor Augustus, when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. This census took place in the year 6 A.D., the last year of the reign of Herod's son Archaelus.
The anomaly is the result of a tradition of the Essenes, where a boy had two 'births', his 'physical' birth, and is 're-birth', that is, his "coming of age" birth.
It was the ancient version of today's Jewish "Bar-Mitzvah".
So, his coming out ceremony happening in 6 A.D. at age 12 would tend to indicate his actual birth being about 6 B.C., while Herod The Great was still ruler of Judea.
3. Jesus was obviously NOT the "Son of God" as there is a great deal of space spent in the New Testament listing his genealogy from the House Of David. Even though the Gospel of John does not mention the birth event specifically, John 7:42 DOES say "Hath not the scripture said, that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem where David was". Also, St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans Chapter 1, verses 3-4 state: "Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God".
In Mark 10:47 AND Matthew 22:42 Jesus is called the "son of David". In Acts 2:30, Peter (referring to King David) calls Jesus the "fruit of his loins, according to the flesh".
My personal definition of this statement would be that he was the result of a lot of fucking.
These entries, along with the male-line geneological lists in Matthew and Luke, make it quite clear that Jesus was of human descent from King David.
IF he was an actual "son of God", he would have no male-line lineage whatsoever.
Not only that, in the New Testament, any time people asked him if he was the Son of God, he always replied the same way, some variant of "That's what YOU say".
All references to him as being the "Son of God" were by other people. In the New Testament, there are 45 statements such as "declared to be", "preached as", "believed to be", or "was called" the "Son Of God".
On the other side of the coin, there are 90 instances where he is called "the son of Man", most of which were Jesus referring to himself.
Then there is the fact that Jesus was not the only "Messiah" who supposedly died and rose again on the third day.
There are numerous others who came before Jesus who were supposedly "born of a virgin", "healed the sick", "raised the dead", etc.
Egyptian God Horus (3,000 B.C.) was born of a virgin on December 25th,
the birth heralded by a star in the East, adored by 3 kings, was a teacher at age 12, baptized and began his ministry at age 30, had 12 disciples who traveled with him, performing miracles like healing the sick and walking on water, was known by many names like The Truth, The Light, God's Anointed Son, The Shepherd, The Lamb Of God, etc., and then after being betrayed by Typhon, he was crucified, was dead for 3 days and then was resurrected.
Other "gods" or "messiahs" with identical attributes include the Greek God Attis (1,200 B.C.) who was born of a virgin on Dec. 25th, was crucified, then resurrected after 3 days.
Krishna (India 900 B.C.) was born of a virgin with a star in the east, performed miracles and was resurrected
Greek God Dionysus (500 B.C.) was born of a virgin on December 25th, was a traveling teacher who performed miracles like turning water into wine, was called the "King of Kings", and when he died he was resurrected.
Persian named Mithra (1,200 B.C.) was born of a virgin on December 25th, had 12 disciples, performed miracles, and when he died he was dead for only 3 days and then resurrected.
And these are only a few of those "messiahs" or gods who had these same attributes.
3. Jesus's Parents And The Virgin Birth
I have often said that if God actually wrote the Ten Commandments, he had no intention of keeping them himself. If he said "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery", he most surely still fucked Mary, or sent one of his minions to fuck her on his behalf. I wonder what Joseph thought of that?
**knock knock knock**
"WHO IS IT?"
"I am an angel of The Lord".
"WHAT DO YOU WANT? DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME IT IS???"
"I am here to fuck your wife."
"Oh. Come on in!"
Uh...sure....right. Only a moron would believe such a scenario.
Joseph was never called a "carpenter" back in the day. He was refered to in the original Aramaic by the term naggar, which means "craftsman", or someone who worked with their hands. Some experts say that would most likely define someone as a scholar or master.
Then there is Mary, and the mis-translation of what she was. The original Semitic word that described her was almah, which meant "young woman". The Semitic word for physical virginity was bethulah.
In Latin, the word virgo simply meant "unmarried", and the Latin phrase meaning a physical virgin was virgo intacta.
What is truly stupid is the Catholic tradition that she was a virgin forever.
Luke 2:27 clearly states Mary & Joseph were his parents. And all four of the Gospels mention the fact he was not an only child. The most specific of these instances being Mark 6:3 - which also clearly states Mary is his mom:
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?"
Yes, Mary liked to fuck. Quite obvious, really.
There are other documents from back then which also mention Jesus's sisters by name, like the Protevangelion of James, in the Gospel of Philip, and in the Church's Apolistic Constitution.
In the Panarion and the Ancoratus of Epiphanius they are mentioned as Mary, Salome, and Anna.
Mary & Salome appear in Mark 15:47, while Mary & Joanna appear in Luke 24:10.
Jesus's sister Mary (known popularly as Mary Jacob) accompanied Mary Magdelene to Gaul (modern day France) in 44 A.D., according to The Acts Of Magdelene and the ancient MS History Of England which are in the Vatican Archives.
So anyway, when we talk about scams, this one takes the cake. Almost 2,000 years of utter bullshit, genocide on a massive scale (look up the Albigensian Crusade, for example), misery, suffering, death, and the extraction of trillions of dollars from peasants and common people who could not afford to give anything at all, all based on LIES.
I can get into Christmas as a sort of "End Of The Year" thing, where one takes a breather to hang out with friends and family and celebrate SURVIVING ANOTHER YEAR, but it is asshats like the Catholic Church, Jerry Falwell, Oral Sex Roberts, and the thousands of small-time crooks and hoodlums trying to steal money from everyone in the name of THE LORD-DUH! that disgust me.
Disclaimer: The above reflects the opinions of the author and even possibly Satan, and does not reflect the opinions of sheep or the management of rotharmy.com. it's parent companies and/or subsidiaries.
If you wanna believe in Santa Clause, or Jebus, or the Toof Fairy, be my guest. Not all Christians are bad. Just seems to me the ones in power are scum of the highest magnitude.
Merry Christmas everyone.
You may all begin your arguments, kicking and screaming about blasphemy, Jebus, Satan, God, or Ceiling and Basement Cat below.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Hardrock69
