Jesus had a Big Cock!

Bizarre as it sounds, The Holy Prepuce, or Holy Foreskin was, purportedly saved & preserved by a Jewish woman, when Jesus Christ, was eight days old.

I joke you not, there are folk that take this stuff seriously.

One presumes, this unnamed Jewish woman, must have possessed psychic-powers, in order to recognise a Messiah brat, from all the other week-old new-born, and cognate the importance of flogging his foreskin and preserving-it, for posterity.

In a stunning historic oversight and quirk, Christian devotees at the time, thought a bit of Jesus Christ’s penis was a more significant relic to preserve, than say a single word of his writing , or description of his appearance?!

To further demean Christian historians and show what a bunch of oddballs these disciples were, they managed to mummify all-important body-parts of their God-Man, like the foreskin, yet failed to leave us a legacy like a painting or a sculpture.

Bumbling Christian historians, recorded Jesus’s foreskin was removed, eight-days after he was born - but forgot to note down the actual date of the birth itself!

As the story goes, and in another lucky coincidence for Christians, the enterprising intuitive Jewish old-duck, had a son who was a chemist, and it was him who was able to embalm part of Jesus’s cock, for Christians to worship-over, centuries later.

In another twist, evidently Jesus had a big cock.

From the share number of his foreskins floating around Europe, John Holmes himself, would have blushed at it’s size.

So would a mature male rhinoceros.

There happens to be portion of JC’s foreskin in Rome, Antwerp, Besancon, Newport, Metz, Coulombs, Heldesheim, Charroux, Langres, Fecamp, and Stoke-on-Trent of all places.

There’s two Church's in Auvergre, France alone, with claims on a bit of JC’s cock.

Eighteen places in total, where it’s preserved as a true holy relic.

Weird but true.

Goes with the territory.

Jesus was Illiterate at best

I’m a natural born skeptic.

I am open to persuasion, given the relevant facts.

Open-minded enough to say “I was wrong” and change my paradigms & personal beliefs on any given subject.

The more I read into the history of Jesus of Nazareth – the more I re-enforce my belief he simply did not exist, or at very best was an historic no-body.

One of these factors, why I have come to this conclusion - are his writings.

More to the point…the total lack of one word in writing, from Jesus own hand.

So why didn’t Jesus bother to write down his own gospels? Even a note to the milkman, to leave an extra bottle on Saturday.

Logic would dictate a God-man would be perfectly capable of recording his own philosophies, using the full range of languages available, so it would be comprehensible to someone from Japan or for that matter Sweden.

Is it even a given, he was keen to articulate ‘his word’ to as many mortals as possible, based on the fact he choose the most unreliable method to record his time on earth?

The perfect human God-man, relied on sin-filled-humans with all their open frailties, to be his biographer.

To make things worse, he employed more than one of these imperfect scribes.

Given the illiteracy rates, at that point in history, a dangerous ploy at best.

He banked on peoples memories to write-down what they remembered, decades after his death.

It makes you wonder if there where there large tribes of ‘idiot savants’ wandering the sands at that time – able to record Jesus words verbatim, decades later.

Who reading this can remember ‘word for word’ the best-mans speech at their wedding?

The God-Man also relied totally-on everyone, with whom he encountered, understanding Aramaic fluently. There was not one universal language at that time, as there is today, so translation must be another daily obstacle, for anyone dictating his life.

If one believes The Bible, Jesus was an orator with no peer – so why did he suffer ‘writers block’ when it came to written language?

If he was a great teacher, he was one that was unable to use the blackboard.

Anyone reading this who believes The Bible, it says in Luke 4:16 and 4:20 he could read – so taking this at face value, you would have to conclude he could in-fact write as well.

It also says in John 8:3-1(best known for "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.") something about Jesus knelling and writing in the sand - but what he wrote, is not recorded?

Even if Jesus had of written something profound in the sand that day, his later-day scribes didn’t deem it significant enough to be recorded, or perhaps no one else got to see it, before it was scrubbed-out forever?

For all we know, Jesus may have been doodling a ‘happy face’ in the sand rather than a great enlightenment, proving my initial tenure – it was him who was best placed to record his own story, not mere mortals.

A conclusion one could make given what we know, is that the scriptures, the record of his teachings - were a low priority to him.

Deliberately opting to write nothing when you are perfectly capable, seems a strange choice to make, but ‘believers’ don’t appear to see this as being an issue.

The story and ‘message’ of his life was more important to his followers, that him personally.

Frankly I don’t think I’m being unreasonable here, raising these gaping anomalies, in the fictional stories of Jesus.

So I’m sticking to my belief: Jesus didn’t exist.

But I’m open to be proven wrong.



Footnote: In my previous article, I drew your attention to the fact there is no contemporary records of Jesus existing any-where in any neutral historical records of the time.