Crucifixion Of Jesus Or The Holy Rape of Jessica? 1

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? 2Endmark

Published:

in

,

Author:

Halimo

Tags:

Comments

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

  1. lumbernator Avatar
    lumbernator

    @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
  2. lumbernator Avatar
    lumbernator

    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
  3. shadowofears Avatar
    shadowofears

    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
  4. shadowofears Avatar
    shadowofears

    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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *