Jesus has breasts...!!??

Confident Learner Joined: Jun 16, 2008 Posts: 78

So what gender is god? He, she, it, all three or something else?

I ask because there's a curiosity in the book of Revelation that gets quietly forgotten and/or glossed over by christian pastors and teachers. Those who can read New Testament Greek (the original language these books were written in) usually cover up this glitch in God's nature by mistranslating it. To find out what I'm referring to either pick up a bible or go here...

http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvReve.html

Then click on Revelation chapter 1 and go to verse 13.

The apostle John, who (supposedly) wrote Revelation turns around and sees...

"...one like the son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle."

Paps? As in breasts? Yes! Exactly! Don't believe me? Ok then, try this.
Go here...

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rev1.pdf

You'll get a pdf file when you click on this, so you'll need the Adobe reader to see it properly. Btw, an Interlinear is simply a New Testament where the original Greek words are interspaced with their translated English counterparts. By all means check out the Greek lettering if you want to but more relevant are the translations written out underneath each Greek word.

Now scroll down thru chapter 1 until you get to verse 13. Sure enough, the proper translation of the body parts being covered by that golden girdle (a kind of sash) read as "mastos" or what we'd call breasts.

This isn't some kind of mistake. The bible really does say that the son of man (Jesus) is endowed with properly-formed female breasts.

Still don't believe me? Right then, go back to the first link and this time select chapter 15 and look at verse 6. It says...

"...and the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girdled with golden girdles."

In English it looks much the same as Rev. 1:13. But don't be fooled!
Click here...

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rev15.pdf

Look at verse 6. The Interlinear correctly translates the word "breasts" as chests. Here the angels are fully masculine, not some intermediate hermaphrodite mix like Jesus. This can be easily proven.

In 1:13 the key word is mastos . This is where the modern-day words mastectomy and mastitis come from. The first is the operation to remove a female mammary gland and the second is an infection of the mammary gland. In no way can the word mastos be considered masculine or gender-neutral. It's true meaning refers exclusively to the female breast.

Contrast this with 15:6 where the word in question is not mastos, but stethos . This is where the modern-day word stethoscope comes from. It's a listening device used by doctors to hear the beating of the heart or the action of the lungs. Stethos and mastos are completely different words referring to different things.

Therefore Jesus, as described by John in chapter 1, verse 13, is endowed with a pair of proper female breasts. If John had meant the same thing as the angels in 15:6 he would have used stethos. If John had described the angels as having breasts too he would have used the word mastos.
But he didn't.

So what we can we conclude from this mysterious vision of a male/female Jesus? I wish I knew! It certainly mystifes me.

What's even more troubling is that modern bibles like the popular New International and American Standard Versions DO NOT translate these passages correctly. Why is this?

I smell a cover-up here. Am I alone in thinking this or would somebody like to help me out? Surely the truth matters, doesn't it?

BornAgainAthiest.

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:31 pm

Men have breasts, too, they're just flatter than women's. Surprised

|

Confident Learner Joined: Jun 16, 2008 Posts: 78

ApostateLois wrote:

Men have breasts, too, they're just flatter than women's. Surprised

|

Hello ApostateLois.

Yes, I know what you mean but the question here is, "Did the apostle John see these flatter masculine breasts on the Son of Man (Jesus) or did he see genuine female mammary glands?" If it's the first then Jesus is properly masculine. If it's the second then we have a male/female Jesus.

I conclude that these are the proper female organs. My reasoning goes as follows...

* The fact that he's seeing them thru a golden girdle (sash) that's drawn around the upper body suggests that they're prominent and visible like a woman's breasts, not flat, like a man's.

* John uses the word mastos to describe them. If he had meant a man's chest he would have used the word stethos . Please follow the links in my initial message to confirm this.

* The second reference by John to this kind of clothing occurs in Revelation 15:6, describing seven angels dressed this way. As I mentioned in the opening message of this thread the word used for their chests is stethos, not mastos. Therefore John chose a word meaning female breasts when referring to Jesus and used another, meaning the non-female chest when talking about the angels.

Putting these three points together, I can't help but conclude that John did see Jesus with a women's breasts, covered with a golden sash.

So either the resurrected Son of Man is some kind of male/female fusion or John made a human error and wrote down the wrong word when he penned the book of Revelation. The fallout from either of these possibilities are very far-reaching!

Possibility 1:
When Jesus met, spoke and ate with his followers and disciples after his resurrection surely they'd have noticed if he had acquired a pair of mammary glands?
The Apostle Thomas (commonly known as Doubting Thomas) said he wouldn't believe that Jesus had risen from the dead unless he saw the wounds in the Messiah's hands, feet and side. They looked closely at their newly-resurrected teacher. Wouldn't they have seen his breasts then?
If we say that Jesus will only have breasts at the End Times, when Judgement Day arrives, isn't it relevant to ask why that should be?

Possibility 2:
If John did make a mistake then the truth of the bible is called into question. If he can make an error over such and important thing (He was told by God to write down everything that he saw in his vision) then so can Paul, Luke, Matthew, Mark, Isaiah, Moses and anyone else who wrote down what is supposed to be the perfect word of God.
This possibility leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the bible really is just the collected works of men, not God.

I hope this clarifies things. Thanks for the input.

BornAgainAthiest.

Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:00 am

If Jesus was a she-male, the Catholics will have to revise all their crucifix images.

Confident Learner Joined: Jun 16, 2008 Posts: 78

ApostateLois wrote:

If Jesus was a she-male, the Catholics will have to revise all their crucifix images.

Umm, actually... no they won't, Lois. Confused

As I said earlier this is the risen, resurrected Jesus that John saw in his vision. The Catholic image of him on the crucifix is of the dead Jesus, before he was taken down from the cross, buried in the tomb and then returned to life three days later.

Sorry!

BornAgainAthiest.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore