Crucifixion Of Jesus Or The Holy Rape of Jessica?

Introduction

Praise be to the Lord, the One and Only, Who has neither a wife nor a son.

To proceed, we present here to our dear readers an article which includes some of our observations during our investigation of the Christian Scriptures which has occupied my mind for some time. What encouraged me to present these findings is the fact that none of the Christians that we confer to offered any plausible refutation to this theory of ours.

The Christian faith is founded upon these well-known and established bases:

Inheritance of Adam’s sin by all mankind.
Crucifixion and the blood-shedding of Jesus because of Adam’s sin as an Atonement for humanity.

After examination and investigation of the Christians’ Scripture, the reader will notice that it conveys something different from these two bases and reveal a serious secret and a hidden fact. With a little pondering, we will notice that the basis of Christian faith is the statement:

“Adam had committed a sin.”

If this statement is established, we will find the next statement:

“Sons of Adam inherited the original sin from their father.”

If this second statement is true, we can formulate several statements until we reach the final statement, upon which the Christian creed is founded:

“Jesus was crucified as an Atonement for humans’ sin.”

It is agreed upon among intelligent people that results follow the reasons that caused them in correctness and error; if the reasons are valid, the results are therefore correct — if the reasons are not, then the results are therefore erroneous. This rule has nothing to do with Islam, Christianity or anything else because it is purely an intellectual rule that is generally agreed upon by all.

If we want to implement this rule on the Christian creed, we should first ask about the correctness of the first statement upon whom the Christianity is based, namely that “Adam has committed a sin.” In order to be fair with Christians and in order for our research to gain their acceptance, we will depend in judging this statement on the Bible they use in deriving their beliefs.

Following The White Rabbit

Let us begin by posing the following question:

Who committed the original sin, was it Adam or Eve?

The Christians believe the answer to be Adam. However, if we refer to the Bible, we will find that this is an erroneous statement and that Adam is innocent. Here are the evidences:

The First Evidence

Genesis, 3:1-6 – “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden. And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

From this text, we learn that Eve was the one who committed the sin and with her Adam and all humanity fell. She committed the sin and was the reason for sinfulness of the entire human race including Adam. Adam is innocent from what they attribute to him for he did not disobey the Command of God.

The Second Evidence

The lesson we learnt from the above text is further fortified by the New Testament in the hands of Christians today:

1 Timothy 2:14 – “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

The Third Evidence

The sacrificed Saviour should be a woman, not a man. So God should incarnate in the form of a woman, not a man, and her name would be Jessica, not Jesus. Since Christians believe that the Atonement must be with the most precious thing the Saviour has, therefore the Lord incarnated in a Woman must therefore sacrifice the most precious thing that a virgin woman possess — her honour.

The sin of Adam was never mentioned by the Messiah in any of the Gospels, this therefore confirms our argument that the Messiah has nothing to do with Adam’s sin.

Observations:

All these evidences expose some interesting and important facts, which are as follows:

Firstly, evidence reveals that Adam is innocent from guilt and sin for he did not disobey and that he is not responsible for the original sin; Eve is.

Secondly, Christians believe that the original sin which the human race has inherited from the first sinner requires an Atonement.

Therefore, if we conclude from the above arguments that Eve is the originator of the first sin and that Adam is merely a victim of Eve’s temptation and not the first sinner, then it is more logical for the Atonement to be in accordance with the following scenario:

The sacrificed Saviour should be a woman, not a man. So God should incarnate in the form of a woman, not a man, and her name would be Jessica, not Jesus, in order for her to make an Atonement for the sin of Eve who was the first to be deceived as proven by the Bible itself.

Since Christians believe that the Atonement must be with the most precious thing the Saviour has, therefore the Lord incarnated in a Woman must therefore sacrifice the most precious thing that a virgin woman possess — her honour. It is well-known that the honour of a pious woman is more precious to her than even her own life. So, the more logical scenario — according to Christian standards — would be for God to allow a group of Jews to forcefully deflower her as an Atonement for Eve’s original sin and to hence remove the inherited temptation.

Therefore the forceful blood-shedding of the hymen of a sinless, honourable and pious Lady Jessica would represent the cruel blood-shedding of a crucifixion sacrifice used as an atonement for sin. And the Jewish gang-rape of the Goddess-incarnate, Lady Jessica – instead of the crucifixion of an innocent Jesus – would be the more logical consequence as offered by the Bible itself because of Eve’s “original sin” who was the first human being to disobey God. The shame that would be ascribed to her and her followers, not to mention the abuse, suffering and mental agony that she would later undergo because of her forceful deflowering at the hands of a group of Jewish men, would be the most supreme sacrifice for the Atonement of the human race from Eve’s sin that could never be removed except with the blood of Lady Jessica’s hymen.

Conclusions

The ultimate result of this objective research is that the holy rape of the Goddess-Incarnate Lady Jessica, instead of the violent crucifixion of Jesus, peace be upon him, would be the symbol which Christians should adopt and present before humanity. We do not believe any sane person would believe in this ugly creed based upon the principles held by the Christians themselves.

And the last of our prayers is: Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds. Crucifixion Of Jesus Or The Holy Rape of Jessica? 2

Published:

September 28, 2005

Christian Doctrines, Christianity

Author:

Bismika Allahuma Team

Tags:

Comments

4 responses to “Crucifixion Of Jesus Or The Holy Rape of Jessica?”

lumbernator

August 22, 2010

@shadowoffear

If you simply read from the first writers of Christianity from the 1st to 3rd century, everything you call fabrication was there from the beginning, even taught by Jesus Himself or from old Jewish scriptures. You simply glaze over topics without serious scholarship which would at least lead you to the places where all of these doctrines were first taught.

Amongst the many things brought up, the Church never said Jesus was born on the 25th of December. In fact, it is thought that he was born sometime in the summer. It is celebrated on December 25th because of astrological significance (Jesus is the light of the world, and after the winter solstice, the days get longer with more light, so it seems appropriate for a celebration of Jesus coming into the world to line up with this) along with replacing a pagan Roman holiday which occurred around the same time of the year. Also, if placed during the summer, all the holidays and feasts would occur at the same time. It is better to spread the holidays throughout the year so they can be properly celebrated rather than being thrown all together. It is less about getting the exact timing and more about the significance behind it.

As a side note, simply throwing words or phrases in quotation marks is not an argument or proof against their validity. It looks “authoritative” to place the “incorrect” or “ill-defined” words in quotation thus “trivializing” and “belittling” the terms thus nullifying the whole concept or ideas behind them. The problem is this tactic is more of a device to appear knowledgeable than an actual argument which can stand on its own regardless of the author.

Reply
lumbernator

August 22, 2010

Proof one is incorrect. Even if Adam didn’t sin first, he is still guilty because he knew not to eat of the fruit and still did. He doesn’t loose guilt or culpability because Eve sinned first. Adam was still in an unfallen state when he ate the apple, so he knew what he was doing. We can see with just common sense that if someone sins before yourself, you don’t loose guilt when you commit the same sin with full knowledge of it’s sinful nature.

Adam was the first to sin even though Eve was the first to eat of the fruit. We can see on a purely natural level that man is a protector of women. On a supernatural level, man gets his fatherhood and responsibility to protect from God. Adam was supposed to protect Eve from the fruit and serpent, and by allowing her to act, he committed the first sin by sitting silently and allowing her to sin. By not stopping evil, you commit evil.

Proof 2 is incomplete and more proves my previous paragraph than that Eve is guilty of bringing original sin. It talks about in verses 11-15:

(11)A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. (12)I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (13)For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (14)And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. (15)But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Essentially, it shows that Eve was deceived, but Adam had authority over her. It doesn’t say if she ignored him or how it transgressed, but Adam had a mission from God with the authority given to him by God, and Adam needs to take any measure necessary to exercise it.

Also, it mentions in the verses how Eve was deceived, so Adam committed the sin with full knowledge and intention while Eve was deceived, the opposite of what you argue.

Your third proof doesn’t necessarily follow, God Himself chooses what is a worthy sacrifice for Him. Even if a woman did commit the first sin, He can still send down whomever or whatever in whatever form He sees fit for sacrifice, which happened to be His only son Jesus. His knowledge is above our which is why we need to submit to His Word in faith.

The most precious thing a woman, or a man even, posses isn’t honor or anything of the sort, but faith and a relationship with the God who reached towards His humanity with His perfect love.

Reply
shadowofears

December 20, 2006

Christian scholars today readily recognize the fact that for the first three decades C.E., “Christianity” remained a sect within Judaism and that the first fifteen Bishops of Christianity were circumcised Jews who worshipped in the synagogues of the Jews. We have seen how it was only after the introduction of Christianity to the Romans and the official “guardianship” of the Roman empire of the religion of Jesus that it began to see many of the “truths” of the mission of Jesus which were hidden from the very first apostles of Jesus . We have seen how the “Trinity,” the birth of Jesus on the 25th of December, the Easter festival and many other founding doctrines of Christianity were not recognized to be the “truth” until after the religion of Jesus was adopted by those people who for many centuries before that had been spoon fed the doctrines of “Trinity,” “savior from sin,” “incarnation of the Almighty,” “death and resurrection,” Christmas and Easter, “three days and three nights in hell,” “only begotten of the almighty,” “killed by the enemy,” and many other matters which were later “inspired” to them by God in order to be “clarified” in the Bible so that they could be seen clearly.
The story was interested indeed just like the fiction story of Pagan Christ(remember to mention that Jesus of islam is not same as Pagan Christ of christainity)

Reply
shadowofears

December 20, 2006

Christian scholars today readily recognize the fact that for the first three decades C.E., “Christianity” remained a sect within Judaism and that the first fifteen Bishops of Christianity were circumcised Jews who worshipped in the synagogues of the Jews. We have seen how it was only after the introduction of Christianity to the Romans and the official “guardianship” of the Roman empire of the religion of Jesus that it began to see many of the “truths” of the mission of Jesus which were hidden from the very first apostles of Jesus . We have seen how the “Trinity,” the birth of Jesus on the 25th of December, the Easter festival and many other founding doctrines of Christianity were not recognized to be the “truth” until after the religion of Jesus was adopted by those people who for many centuries before that had been spoon fed the doctrines of “Trinity,” “savior from sin,” “incarnation of the Almighty,” “death and resurrection,” Christmas and Easter, “three days and three nights in hell,” “only begotten of the almighty,” “killed by the enemy,” and many other matters which were later “inspired” to them by God in order to be “clarified” in the Bible so that they could be seen clearly.
The story was interested indeed just like the fiction story of Pagan Christ(remember to mention the Jesus of islam is not same as Pagan Christ of christainity)

Reply