Rebuttal to Jochen Katz: Did Jesus Have Female Breasts?

Rebuttal to Jochen Katz

Did Jesus Have Female Breasts?

Abdullah Kareem

The Infidel Jochen Katz (Joking Rat) is a very emotional and foolish writer, seeking to undermine the credibility of my articles by casting doubt on the smallest points. Katz only whines like a baby and writes nonsense. The infidel has been mocking Islam for several years before the writers of Answering Christianity joined the battlefield. Insha-Allah, we shall destroy their articles one by one. Katz promotes the ridiculous articles of “Sam Shamoun” who is a homosexual for having gay rape fantasies. These two nasty Infidels have absolutely no respect for Islam which has contributed too much for humanity, and ending the Dark Ages of Europe. Would you attack someone who showers you with gifts? I don’t understand Christians.

Anyway, Katz has mustered up the courage to answer my challenge because he personally loves challenges and social confrontations. A pathetic fool, Katz is a pathetic fool who writes nonsense, making tirade after tirade.

The nonsense stops here.

First the article Did Jesus Have Female Breasts is factual and correct. Here is the evidence, the Book of Revelation depicts Jesus wearing a golden girdle around his breasts, yet a golden girdle is especially worn by women to cover the upper part of their body. In fact, John the Baptist wore a golden girdle to cover his loins; he never wore it around his breast, simply because he was not female!

And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. (Matthew 3:4)

The scholar Tom Harper states:

”…The fact that the figure in this passage from Revelation wore a “girdle”, or cincture, about the breasts – the modern equivalent would be a brassiere – confirms that the breasts in question are female. Indeed, the New English Bible translates the plural as though it were singular – “with a golden girdle round his breast”. The New Revised Standard Version tries to avoid any embarrassment by wrongly translating it as “chest”. True, the word in Greek here for “girdle” is the same one used to describe John the Baptist’s girdle. But there it plainly says that it was wound about his loins, not his chest. (The Pagan Christ, p. 212)

The Bible provides evidence that girdles are exclusively worn by men around their loins.

Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; (Luke 12:35)

Thus saith the LORD unto me, Go and get thee a linen girdle, and put it upon thy loins, and put it not in water. (Jeremiah 13:1)

And they answered him, He was an hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite. (2 King 1:18)

Generally, it is only women who wear a girdle around their breasts, so there’s good reason to believe Jesus was depicted as a woman! Also, the woman today wear girdles around their breasts to expose their body on a hot summer day, but Jesus wore a golden girdle around his chest which Jewish woman in those days wore around their breasts!

The question is: Why is Jesus the only character to wear a golden girdle around his chest unless he was a woman? Why did Jesus not wear it around his loins like the Baptist? Was Jesus embarrassed to show his chest? These are relevant questions that cannot be answered. The only explanation is Jesus was depicted as a woman; the Book of Revelation degrades him.

There is no character besides Jesus who wears a girdle around his breast, except for the Angels of heaven (who have no gender, the Greek word mastos is not applied to them). Let us quote the passage:

And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts (stethos) girded with golden girdles. (Revelations 15:6)

Just because the angels wore a golden girdle around their chest does not mean they are female. Notice how the feminine Greek word mastos is not applied to them. Obviously, the angels of God have no gender or femininity, so the word stethos is applied to them. Jesus is depicted as a woman because the Greek word mastos is applied to him.

The Greek mastos is only applied to woman:

And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps (mastos) which thou hast sucked. (Luke 11:27)

For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps (mastos) which never gave suck. (Luke 23:29)

The Greek word stethos is only applied to men:

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast (stethos), saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. (Luke 18:13)

Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. He then lying on Jesus' breast (stethos) saith unto him, Lord, who is it? (John 13:25)

Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast (stethos) at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? (John 21:20)

Apparently, the word stethos is never applied to women, and mastos is never applied to men. Yes, the Greek Lexicon defines mastos as referring to both male and female, but the prevailing sense is female (according to the NT). The author of Revelation and John are the same, yet he applies the feminine mastos to Jesus in Revelation 1:13 but applies stethos to Jesus in John 13:25, 21:20.

Strong’s Number:

Transliterated Word:

Stethos

Phonetic

stay'-thos

Definition:

the breasts (*)

The Greek word stethos simply means “breasts”. Yet, the word mastos is specifically used for woman:

Strong’s Number: 3149

Transliterated Word:

Mastos

Phonetic

mas-tos'

Definition:

the breasts
the breasts (nipples) of a man
breasts of a women (*)

Why does the Book of Revelation use the word mastos and not stethos?

Apparently, the Bible editors knew that mastos (plural = breasts) with a golden girdle means a woman. This explains why the Bible editors avoided the plural “breasts”.

And in the midst of the lampstands [One] like a Son of Man, clothed with a robe which reached to His feet and with a girdle of gold about His breast. (Amplified Bible)

And among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man,"dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. (NIV)

There is not a single Bible version that translates the word mastos as “breasts”, simply because the Bible editors were too embarrassed. Obviously, the Bible translators knew that wearing a golden girdle (around the chest) signifies a female.

Here is the “Tektonic” explanation:

Furthermore, a girdle does not signify female breasts. The Greek word translated as "girdle" in Revelation 1:13 is also used to describe the garments of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:4; Mark 1:6) and Paul (Acts 21:11). The word simply means "belt" or "band." A girdle is a belt or band that encircles the body. Again, Revelation 1:13 does not imply an androgynous Christ. http://www.tektonics.org/harpur01.html.

A girdle only signifies female breasts if it’s worn around the chest! A girdle worn around the loins signifies a male.

I have examined the two passages Matthew 3:4 and Mark 1:6, both of these texts are depicting John the Baptist wearing a golden girdle around the loins. Regarding Acts 21:11 the verse does not say where Paul wore the girdle, but it was certainly around the loins.

And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, (Acts 21:11)

Paul never wore the girdle around his breasts. The words mastos or stethos are never used. Obviously, Paul wore a girdle around his loins like the Baptist. We notice that Paul was not bare-naked, since the girdle is only a secondary garment. IF the passage indicates that Paul wore it around his breasts, he used the girdle to protect his valuables as a pocket.

Historically, the only occasion when men wore the girdle around the chest was during times of sorrow.

And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty. (Isaiah 3:24)

And in that day did the Lord GOD of hosts call to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth: (Isaiah 22:12)

The question is: Did Jesus wear the golden girdle because he was mourning?

And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; (Revelations 1:12-14)

There is no indication of any sorrow. So why did Jesus wear the girdle when he wasn’t mourning? The Book of Revelation does not tell us why Jesus wore a golden girdle. John the Baptist wore a golden girdle (around his loins) because he was Essene. This is exactly how the Essenes dressed, a white linen cloth (girdle) and eating locusts and wild honey.

(The Tenets of the Esseni) And they continue in an orderly manner, and with perseverance pray from early dawn, and they do not speak a word unless they have praised God in a hymn. And in this way they each go forth and engage in whatever employment they please; and after having worked up to the fifth hour they leave off. Then again they come together into one place, and encircle themselves with linen girdles, for the purpose of concealing their private parts. [1]

This undoubtedly proves that John was Essene, so why did Paul wear a girdle (around his chest) when he wasn’t Essene? The answer is simple; Paul wore a girdle to place his valuables.

The Bible shows girdles are like pockets:

`Provide not gold, nor silver, nor brass in your girdles, (Matthew 10:9)

And he commanded them that they may take nothing for the way, except a staff only -- no scrip, no bread, no brass in the girdle. (Mark 6:8) (*)

Yet Jesus wore a girdle when there was no mourning! IF Jesus wore a girdle to protect his valuables, what could he possibly hide? The Book of Revelation is not based on historical events, but it’s only a dream.



The Book of Revelation details a dream-like vision of the apocalypse–the end times that bring the tribulation, the rapture, and the second coming of Christ. [1]

We have good reason to be suspicious.

Here is summary of the facts we have presented so far.

Let us consider the authorship of John and Revelation, both books are written by the same author. Scholars agree that Revelation is composed by the author of John. The argument is John applies the Greek word stethos (male) to Jesus (13:25, 21:20), yet the same author applies the word mastos (female) to Jesus in Revelation 1:13. There is significance by comparing John and Revelation, the former depicts Jesus as male, the latter depicts Jesus as female. If the case is negative, then why did John switch from stethos to mastos? He obviously knew that mastos is prominently female, and stethos is male. If you don’t believe the evidence, let us review the facts.

The Greek mastos is only applied to woman:

For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps (mastos) which never gave suck. (Luke 23:29)

The Greek word stethos is only applied to men:

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast (stethos), saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. (Luke 18:13)

Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. He then lying on Jesus' breast (stethos) saith unto him, Lord, who is it? (John 13:25)

Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast (stethos) at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? (John 21:20)

There is not a single passage in the entire New Testament where mastos is applied to men. Therefore, the prevailing sense in the Greek New Testament is mastos defines female breasts, and stethos defines male breasts. Period.

Needless to say, men don’t have private parts on the upper part of their body. It’s only the women who need to cover the upper part – whereas the men only need to cover the lower parts (loins). The male characters wear the upper girdle for various reasons; it could be for mourning, or simply to place valuables.

It is obvious that the Bible editors were too embarrassed to translate the word mastos as “breasts”, only translating it “chest” or “breast”. If you can you find a Bible that says “breasts”, I would be happy to read it.

Isn’t it strange that Jesus only wears a golden girdle in Revelation? He never wears the girdle in the Gospels.

(1). The Golden girdle

The Prophets of God wear a girdle around the loins:

And they answered him, He was an hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite. (2 Kings 1:8)

Thus saith the LORD unto me, Go and get thee a linen girdle, and put it upon thy loins, and put it not in water. (Jeremiah 13:1)
The girdle is only worn around the chest during times of mourning:

Yet, Jesus was not even mourning! (Rev. 1:13) so therefore he was bisexual.

And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. (Revelation 1:13)

Do you see any reference to mourning?

The Tektonics website says that many characters wore the golden girdle (John the Baptist and Paul). But what is the reason why the Baptist and Paul wore the girdle?

(1). Paul dressed in a girdle to protect his valuables (as a pocket).

And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, (Acts 21:11)

`Provide not gold, nor silver, nor brass in your girdles, (Matthew 10:9)

And he commanded them that they may take nothing for the way, except a staff only -- no scrip, no bread, no brass in the girdle. (Mark 6:8) (*)

(2). John the Baptist wore a golden girdle (around his loins) because he was a strict Essene.

And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey. (Mark 1:6)

And they continue in an orderly manner, and with perseverance pray from early dawn, and they do not speak a word unless they have praised God in a hymn. And in this way they each go forth and engage in whatever employment they please; and after having worked up to the fifth hour they leave off. Then again they come together into one place, and encircle themselves with linen girdles, for the purpose of concealing their private parts. (Hippolytus of Rome, The Tenets of the Esseni)

Once again, the girdle was worn during times of great mourning, yet Jesus wore a golden girdle when he wasn’t mourning. The only explanation to solve the dilemma is Jesus wore the girdle because he was a woman. There is no reason why Jesus wore the girdle (unless he was a woman) because he wasn’t even mourning! (Jesus is the only character in the New Testament to wear a golden girdle.)

The Book of Revelation equates gold with woman:

And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: (Revelation 17:4)

The fact that Jesus wore a golden girdle indicates that he was female. And the Greek word “mastos” confirms this fact. Why didn’t the author of Revelation use the Greek word stethos instead?

The reason for why Revelation used “mastos” because he wanted to depict Jesus as a bisexual.

Another Christian apologist agrees that Revelation 1:13 depicts Jesus as a bisexual.

Long millenniums after Abraham's encounter with God Almighty, El Shaddai, the "Breasted One", John the Revelator, in exile on the barren Isle of Patmos, heard behind him the voice of One who trumpeted into his ears this message: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, which is, and which was, and which is to come, THE ALMIGHTY" (Rev. 1:8). As John turned to see the Voice that spoke to him, with astonished countenance he beheld the wonder of this One "clothed with a garment down to the foot, and GIRD ABOUT THE PAPS with a golden girdle" (Rev. 1:13). The word "paps" is the Greek word "mastos" used exclusively in Greek for the female breasts! "And it came to pass, as He spoke these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto Him, Blessed is the womb that bare You, and the PAPS (mastos) which You have sucked!" (Lk. 11:27). On Patmos we have the woman's dress and the woman's breast while yet the speaker is THE ALMIGHTY! It would not be possible to describe more vividly the dual nature of our God who is both Male and Female, the Strong and Mighty One, our Father, who is also "El Shaddai", our Mother, the Pourer-forth who pours Himself out for His creatures; who gives them His lifeblood; who draws them in tenderness to His bosom; who satisfies them with milk from His own breast. [1]

For the sake of argument, let us suppose that Paul wrote the girdle around his chest. But why did Jesus wear his golden girdle?

According to the New Testament, the girdle is only worn by men around the loins, whereas the women wear the girdle around their breasts. Jesus is the only character who wears a golden girdle around the chest for no reason.

Questions:

IF the Book of Revelation does not depict Jesus as a bisexual, why does he wear a golden girdle? Why not around the loins (like John the Baptist) if he were male? Should we accuse the Book of Revelations of insulting Jesus for making him wear a golden girdle? (modern brassiere).

(1). Why doesn’t Jesus wear a golden girdle in the Gospels?

(2). Why did the author of John switch from stethos to mastos?

(3). Why did Jesus wear a golden girdle for no reason?

Why does Jesus wear a golden girdle unless the Book of Revelation intended to depict him as a female? The only Prophet who wears a girdle is John the Baptist, but he does not wear it around his chest, and it wasn’t golden!

The Essenes are always clothed in white.

And they despise wealth, and do not turn away from sharing their goods with those that are destitute. No one amongst them, however, enjoys a greater amount of riches than another. For a regulation with them is, that an individual coming forward to join the sect must sell his possessions, and present the price of them to the community. And on receiving the money, the head of the order distributes it to all according to their necessities. Thus there is no one among them in distress. And they do not use oil, regarding it as a defilement to be anointed. And there are appointed overseers, who take care of all things that belong to them in common, and they all appear always in white clothing. (Hippolytus of Rome, The Tenets of the Esseni, online Source)

HE WROTE:

Being badly battered by our exposure of his many misquotations in another one of his articles, "The False Jesus of Christianity" (here), he is in total denial and claims that there is nothing wrong with that article. Nevertheless, instead of dealing with our evidence, he tries to detract attention from his various false claims and misquotations.

RESPONSE:

My misquotations are badly battered? You pathetic fool, the article The False Jesus of Christianity is based on factual evidence and careful analysis of the facts. Yes, the readers of my article totally agree with my claims. Regarding my “false quotations” of Eusebius and Jerome, I have destroyed these cowards.

The Church father Eusebius of Caesarea is charged with fraud by Christians themselves:

No other people in history have been such indefatigable and for the most part clumsy forgers as the Christians. Mosheim: "It was an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by that means the interests of religion might be promoted." Dean Milman: "It was admitted and avowed that to deceive into Christianity was so valuable a service as to hallow deceit itself." Lecky: "the deliberate and apparently perfectly unscrupulous forgery of a whole literature....The Fathers laid down as a distinct proposition [sic] that pious frauds were justifiable and even laudable....it continued till the very sense of truth and the very love of truth seemed blotted out from the minds of men." Edersheim (a Christian Jew): "It will scarcely be credited how general the falsification of signatures and documents had become." Tyndall: "When arguments of proofs were needed...a document was discovered which met the case, and on which the name of an apostle or of some authoritative contemporary of the apostles was boldly inscribed. The end being held to justify the means, there is no lack of manufactured testimony." Origen himself proved that certain passages in Josephus, which represented him as having heard favorable things about Jesus, were forged interpolations. [1]

I badly exposed Jerome for instigating ascestism and promoting celibacy, a direct contradiction of the Bible’s law (Genesis 1:28)

Jerome on Marriage and Sex

HE WROTE

I love challenges, particularly when I can make an idiot look like an idiot. Sorry for my unusually strong language but Abdullah Smith has not deserved anything else. The Bible says: "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall." (Proverbs 16:18) Although Smith's rather ridiculous claim could be soundly refuted in less than a page, I have decided to have some extra fun with this one.

RESPONSE:

This is complete nonsense. You are the biggest idiot for denying the Holy Quran and its eloquence. In fact, you believe the idiotic story of Jesus dying for the “sins of mankind”, a fictional story against logic. There is no reason not to believe that we are responsible for our own sins. Moreover, the Bible and Quran tell us that humans are responsible for their own sins (Ezekiel 18:20-21, Quran 17:15). It is beyond reason to cast the blame upon someone else, Jesus of Nazareth a sinless Prophet being crucified (the most painful death) for sins he has not committed! What kind of person are you? You have the boldness to publish the articles on your filthy website to hurt Muslims, but you believe in nonsense.

We read in the Gospel of Nazarenes that Jesus denied atonement:

Jesus was teaching his disciples in the outer court of the Temple and one of them said unto him: Master, it is said by the priests that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Can then the blood offering of the law take away sin? And Jesus answered: No blood offering, of beast or bird, or man, can take away sin, for how can the conscience be purged from sin by the shedding of innocent blood? Nay, it will increase the condemnation. (online Source)

Needless to say, we know you reject the Gospel of Nazarenes, but it has been proven authentic. Personally, I suggest you stop attacking Islam and Muslims for the sake of truth. The religion of truth is Islam.

Regarding Proverbs 16:18, the same verse applies to you. The bogus website “answering islam” has been debunked by various Muslim websites and scholars. There no substance in what you publish, it’s only waiting to be destroyed. And more rebuttals are coming up, insha-Allah.

HE WROTE:

Frankly, I have never seen any secular scholar of history (i.e. non-Christian and non-Muslim), who considers the Islamic version of Jesus to be more trustworthy than the Biblical accounts. Anyway, let's take this step by step and analyze the recipe of this cooked up "perversion".

RESPONSE:

This is nonsense; the secular scholars of history totally reject the historicity of the Bible and regard Jesus as mythological. Secondly, the secular scholars of history (i.e. non-Christian and non-Muslim) don’t believe that Jesus is divine, nor do they consider Jesus the son of God (unless they are Christian). The Quranic perspective of Jesus is clear and accurate, the Muslims and atheists agree that Jesus was not divine, the former uphold Jesus as the Messiah, but the latter do not believe in Jesus at all. Moreover, the Islamic version of Jesus is widely accepted by thousands of new converts to Islam each year. And the Islamic version of Jesus is closer to the original Jewish view. The early Christians rejected the sonship of Jesus, and the Quran confirms that Jesus is not God.

You are speaking of the historicity of the Biblical accounts of Jesus; I was talking about the superiority of the Muslim Jesus over the false Christian view. My entire article Did Jesus Have Female Breasts debunks the Christian views of Jesus.

The more people have tried to discover who Jesus really was the more it has been found how little is known about him. There are limited records of his teachings and some of his actions, but very little is known about how he actually lived his life from moment to moment and how he conducted his everyday transactions with other people…Certainly, the pictures many people have given of Jesus - of who he was and what he did - are distorted ones. Although there is some truth in them, it has been established that the four accepted Gospels have not only been altered and censored through the ages but also are not eyewitness accounts. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, p. 5)

The most striking feature of the early documents is that they do not set Jesus’ life in a specific historical situation. There is no Galilean ministry, and there are no parables, no miracles, no Passion in Jerusalem, no indication of time, place of attendant circumstances at all. The words Calvary, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Galilee never appear in the early epistles, and the word Jerusalem is never used there in connection with Jesus (Doherty, pp. 68, 73). Instead, Jesus figures as a basically supernatural personage who took the “likeness” of man, “emptied” then of his supernatural powers Phil 2:7. (G.A. Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament? p. 3)

Muslims believe the original Jesus as preached by the early Jewish Christians. It is true that secular scholars reject the historical authenticity of the Quran in favor of the Bible. But they don’ believe Jesus was the son of God, born of a virgin, and rose from the dead. Why are you confusing the readers? I was never speaking of the Bible’s historicity, only the false version of Jesus.

I personally challenge the Joking Rat to produce one Non-Christian scholar who defends the Biblical view that Jesus was God’s son, second person of the trinity, etc). It’s true that secular scholars attest to the crucifixion, but they totally deny the resurrection.

http://www../library/modern/jeff_lowder/empty.html

http://www../library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/

http://www../library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/fictional.html

What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection by Gerd Ludemann

The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry

The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did

HE WROTE:

It is a relatively minor problem that the way Smith refers to dictionaries is totally messed up. He names the Oxford Dictionary but then proceeds to quote from an abridged version of Thayer's Greek Lexicon without providing any bibliographical reference for it, nor giving a link to his actual online source (here). Since the author of Revelation wrote in Greek, we need to investigate the meaning of the Greek word that is used in Revelation 1:13. It is therefore rather pointless to inquire about "paps" in the Oxford Dictionary. The most he could hope to achieve by doing so would be to find some evidence that the 17th century translators of the KJV mistranslated the Greek text, but a dictionary of the English language will never yield any information about the meaning of the Greek text.

However, I don't know why Smith bothers to consult any dictionaries at all, if he then disregards what they say. As unclear as his statements are, according to Smith the two dictionaries that he mentioned (one by name, the other by quoting it) agree that the word/words (paps and/or mastos) is/are generic and can refer to both male and female breasts. Nevertheless, and this is the major issue, he claims to know better than the experts and will allegedly provide evidence that the word can only mean "female breast" when it is used in reference to Jesus. Despite declaring that "historical data" are acceptable, when lexicographers — based on historical data — arrive at the conclusion that mastos can be used to refer to both the male and the female breast, Smith's desire for finding a perversion easily nullifies the dictionaries.

RESPONSE:

The KJV translation of mastos is “paps”, yet the modern Bibles translate mastos as “breast” or “chest”, which is wrong because the Greek word mastos is plural and should be translated “breasts”. The King James Version (1611) was produced in Old English, so the word “paps” is erroneous. The accurate translation is “breasts”.

You assert that mastos can refer to both male and female, yet the New Testament does not provide any evidence that mastos refers to men. In fact, throughout the New Testament, the word mastos is never (not once) applied to men. This is very significant, even though the Greek Lexicon defines mastos as both male and female breasts.

The experts of the Greek language must agree that the New Testament depicts Jesus as a woman, because the word mastos is feminine (Luke 11:27, 23:29), and the word stethos is masculine. (John 13:25, 21:20)

HE WROTE:

Let's begin this section with pointing out a particularly funny howler. Smith argues (emphasis mine):

Christians are ignorant of the New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus; ...
The book of Revelation is probably the most degrading book; it contains a passage that describes Jesus having woman breasts! ...

The word “paps” could refer to both male and female breasts, but the New Testament applies the Greek word “mastos” to woman only!

Since the New Testament never applies the word “paps” to males, ...

Oh Smitty! Apart from the attempt of forcing an unwarranted restriction on the meaning of “mastos”, I thought the whole point of your article was the claim that “mastos” was applied to Jesus, and that this is degrading and perverted. But if the word is applied to women only, and it is never applied to males, then it was never applied to Jesus who was a man. With these statements, your argument is over, unless you want to argue not only that Jesus has female breasts but upgrade to the claim that he was a woman.^[1] In that case, however, I do not understand why you consider it degrading and perverted to ascribe female breasts to a woman. Don't you think your argument is rather incoherent?

RESPONSE:

You have seriously misunderstood my argument, Jesus was a man, yet the Book of Revelation attaches female breasts to his person. How do we know? By the Greek word mastos which ONLY refers to woman:

For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps (mastos) which never gave suck. (Luke 23:29)

The Greek text of Revelation 1:13 contain the word “mastos”, which is feminine (according to the New Testament) because it’s never applied to males. Therefore, my statement “the New Testament applies the Greek word “mastos” to woman only” is factual and correct.

Tom Harper reveals why the prevailing sense of mastos is female:

We know Jesus is a man, but it’s quite shocking that mastos (always feminine in the NT) is applied to him. Yet, the word mastos is not applied to the angels!

And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts (stethos) girded with golden girdles. (Revelations 15:6) (*)

The question is: Why is mastos applied to Jesus and not the angels? This is perverted intention of John.

You wrote: I thought the whole point of your article was the claim that “mastos” was applied to Jesus, and that this is degrading and perverted. But if the word is applied to women only, and it is never applied to males, then it was never applied to Jesus who was a man.

This is pathetic, you are pathetic. The Greek text of Revelation 1:13 apply mastos to Jesus (even though he was male) and mastos refers to female breasts, it’s never used for men.

HE WROTE:

Apart from the fact that he constantly alternates in a confused way between "paps" and "mastos", Smith makes some rather strong statements. Exclusively? Never? Only? On what basis do his conclusions rest? Is his database sufficiently strong and comprehensive to derive such absolute conclusions from it? Has he considered all the evidence? How small can a sample be before it becomes laughable to derive general conclusions from it?

Smith's statements give the misleading impression that there are a large number of passages where the word mastos appears and that they all are used in relation to women's breasts. This is wrong. The simple fact is, that there are only three verses in the New Testament that use this word. Of these three verses total, two verses in the Gospel according to Luke use the word "mastos" for female breasts, and one verse in the book of Revelation uses the word in a description of "one like unto the Son of man", i.e. there is an emphasis on the maleness or masculinity of the person described:

"And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps (mastos) with a golden girdle." Revelation 1:12-13 KJV

"I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone 'LIKE A SON OF MAN,' dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest (mastos)." Revelation 1:12-13 NIV

"To the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These are the words of THE SON OF GOD, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze." Revelation 2:18

"I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one 'LIKE A SON OF MAN' with a crown of gold on HIS head and a sharp sickle in HIS hand. Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to HIM who was sitting on the cloud, 'Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.' So HE who was seated on the cloud swung HIS sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested." Revelation 14:14-16

There is no question, Jesus is clearly portrayed as a powerful, masculine figure in the book of Revelation.

RESPONSE:

You are directly implying that you agree with my conclusions. Yes there are only three verses in the New Testament that use mastos, twice in reference to woman, and to Jesus in Revelation 1:13.

Despite the fact that Jesus is portrayed throughout Revelation as masculine, the word “mastos” (female breasts) denotes wholeness. The author of Revelation knowingly used this word for esoteric meaning.

What makes me come down on the side of the KJV’s take – though preferring the translation of breasts to paps – is that something more than the surface meaning is at play here. Among the ancients, for centuries before the Christian era and contemporaneously with it, it was common to picture divinities with features of the opposite sex, denoting wholeness. For example, Horus was at times depicted with “the locks of girlhood”. The male gods Bacchus and Serapis often appear with breasts, and Venus, the goddess of love for the Romans, is sometimes depicted with a beard!

A deep esoteric point was being made. In ancient philosophy and religion, before Creation, God—all life—was seen as Father and Mother in one. Only by slow development did God become Mother and Father separately. The belief was that human beings too were androgynous before a bifurcation took place and they split into separate sexes. Since there are many other references in Revelation that betray the author’s deep knowledge of so-called Pagan symbolism, it’s quite possible that the Son of Man figure with breasts echoes this primal oneness theme. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 212)

The word "paps" is the Greek word "mastos" used exclusively in Greek for the female breasts! "And it came to pass, as He spoke these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto Him, Blessed is the womb that bare You, and the PAPS (mastos) which You have sucked!" (Lk. 11:27). On Patmos we have the woman's dress and the woman's breast while yet the speaker is THE ALMIGHTY! It would not be possible to describe more vividly the dual nature of our God who is both Male and Female, the Strong and Mighty One, our Father, who is also "El Shaddai", our Mother. [*]

Jesus has female breasts (according to the Bible) to signify wholeness. There are dozens of esoteric passages in the Book of Revelation, it also contains Gnostic influences.

A sacred text like the Apocalypse contains hidden (esoteric) meanings. For instance, it refers to seven "seals", which means the meaning is kept ("sealed") from everyday people's knowledge. Nowadays, we don't conceal heavenly secrets in the same way. [1]

The Book of Revelation, presents the Gnostic Wisdom symbolized in this controversial biblical work. As a document written by Initiates and for Initiates, Revelation is an esoteric treatise of Kabbalah and Alchemy, and can only be understood in light of those ancient sciences and in combination with meditation. [2]

The long-standing and highly controversial view of the esoteric schools is that Revelation, like all scriptures, bears seven levels of meaning, the lowest being the literal or "dead-letter." Those who are instructed in the esoteric knowledge enter gradually into more subtle levels of understanding. From this perspective, it can be understood that Revelation, as a very difficult scripture to grasp intellectually, is more directly concerned with guiding those who have some degree of esoteric knowledge, which requires going beyond the use of the intellect. [3]

The Book of Revelation often has been regarded as a mysterious book, quite beyond the comprehension of the average lay reader. Its many references to angelic beings, its elaborate description of Christ as he appears in the heavenly courts, its use of such mystic numbers as three, seven, twelve, and their multiples, the accounts of strange beasts, symbolic names, and definite time periods—all suggest some hidden and esoteric meaning that supposedly can be detected only by an expert. [4]

The Joking Rat wrote:

Apart from the fact that he constantly alternates in a confused way between "paps" and "mastos", Smith makes some rather strong statements. Exclusively? Never? Only? On what basis do his conclusions rest? Is his database sufficiently strong and comprehensive to derive such absolute conclusions from it? Has he considered all the evidence? How small can a sample be before it becomes laughable to derive general conclusions from it?

The answer is very simple. According to the Greek text, the word mastos is used exclusively for women; and stethos is never applied to woman. Moreover, the Greek word mastos is never applied to men, and specifically refers to woman (Luke 11:27, 23:29). The word stethos exclusively refers to men (Luke 18:13, John 13:25, 21:20).

Need I say more?

HE WROTE:

Again, there are three occurrences of the word "mastos" in the New Testament, and out of these three instances, it refers twice to the breasts of women (in only one book of the NT), and once to the chest of a man (in one other book of the NT). Does that sound like "only to women", "exclusively to women" and "never to males" is an accurate conclusion?

Is it really warranted to say that because the word refers twice to female breasts, therefore the third time it has to be a female breast as well, despite the fact that it clearly speaks about a man?

Are you serious? Let's examine this methodology a bit more.

RESPONSE:

You are deceiving. I have demonstrated that Revelation’s reference to mastos (third instance) is purely esoteric. Jesus is described as half-man and half-woman. The reason why Jesus is described as a bisexual man-god is esoteric, the two instances of mastos is in reference to woman (Luke *), so Jesus is not excluded from that group.

A deep esoteric point was being made. In ancient philosophy and religion, before Creation, God—all life—was seen as Father and Mother in one. Only by slow development did God become Mother and Father separately. The belief was that human beings too were androgynous before a bifurcation took place and they split into separate sexes. Since there are many other references in Revelation that betray the author’s deep knowledge of so-called Pagan symbolism, it’s quite possible that the Son of Man figure with breasts echoes this primal oneness theme. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 212)

HE WROTE:

It is simply not up to Smith to decide which books are part of the New Testament. And certainly he cannot exclude the book of Revelation in one part of his argument and include it in the next. He first excludes Revelation from the New Testament to derive his conclusion that "mastos" refers only and exclusively to female breasts, and then he includes it in the Bible again to be able to claim that the Bible degrades Jesus. He wants to eat his cake and have it too.

What Smith did is (1) to throw away one third of the data, (2) to build his theory on the basis of that carefully selected remainder, and (3) to force his fabricated conclusion on the rest of the data to make that last third of the data mean the opposite of what it actually means. That method is absolutely atrocious and no scholar will ever accept it.

RESPONSE:

In actuality, I did not exclude the Book of Revelation in the first part. On the contrary, my article Did Jesus Have Female Breasts begins with Revelation 1:13 as the thesis. After quoting the Greek Lexicon for “paps”, I presented the Gospels’ usage of mastos and stethos to show that mastos specifically refers to woman. I then proceeded to show that Revelation uses the exact same word (mastos) in reference to Jesus, depicting him as a woman.

Here is the exact chronology of my article:

(1). The Book of Revelation is quoted

(2). The Greek Lexicon for “paps” is cited.

(3). The Gospels usage of mastos and stethos distinguish between male and female.

(4). Conclusion: Jesus has female breasts.

http://www.answering-islam.com/abdullah_smith/did_jesus_have_female_breasts.htm

HE WROTE:

Let's have a look at the later part of Smith's argument (underline and bold-capital emphasis are added by me):

Since the New Testament never applies the word “paps” to males, the verse Revelation 1:13 does speak of Jesus having female breasts! Now if the author of Revelation wanted to say Jesus has MALE breasts, he should’ve used the Greek word “stethos”, which simply means “breast”.

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast (stethos), saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. (Luke 18:13)

Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. He then lying on Jesus' breast (stethos) saith unto him, Lord, who is it? (John 13:25)

Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast (stethos) at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? (John 21:20)

The difference is that “stethos” defines any breast, but “mastos” only refers to female breasts. The perverted author of Revelations decided to use the word “mastos” and not “stethos”.

The scholar Tom Harper comments on Revelations 1:13

Revelation 1:13, in the King James Version, says, “And I saw in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle”. “Paps” is the archaic word for a woman’s breasts. In the Greek, the word used is the plural mastos, which the lexicon defines as “the breast, esp., of the swelling breast of a woman”. Rarely, the plural was used to refer to a man’s breasts, but the prevailing sense is female. The fact that the figure in this passage from Revelation wore a “girdle”, or cincture, about the breasts—the modern equivalent would be a brassiere—confirms that the breasts in question are female. Indeed, the New English Bible translates the plural as though it were a singular—“with a golden girdle round his breast”. The New Revised Standard Version tried to avoid any embarrassment by wrongly translating it as “chest”. (The Pagan Christ, p. 211)

It is interesting to note that Revelations also contains a passage that speaks of angels having breasts!

And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts (stethos) girded with golden girdles. (Revelations 15:6)

Do angels have breasts? The passage doesn’t use the Greek word “mastos”, so the author is simply describing the breasts (NON-FEMALE) of angels. Yet the verse Revelation 1:13 blatantly describes Jesus as a woman.

Isn't it wonderful? First Smith quotes Harpur to back up his case by a statement of a real "scholar", and then he destroys most of Harpur's "evidence" with another quote from Revelation 15:6. Did you see it? Where is the problem? Smith's mind is so fixated on breasts that he did not realize that Rev. 1:13 and Rev. 15:6 have at least to other words in common. Let's highlight them:

And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps (mastos) with a golden girdle (zonen chrysen). (Revelation 1:13)

And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts (stethos) girded with golden girdles (zonas chrysas). (Revelation 15:6)

Both, the Son of man and the angels have golden girdles around their chests. This girdle was Harpur's major piece of evidence that "mastos" in Rev. 1:13 has to be interpreted as speaking about female breasts.

RESPONSE:

We can apply these words to Paul, who wears a girdle around his chest (Acts 21:11), should we accuse Paul of having female breasts?

And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. (Acts 21:11) Note: the word mastos is not used.

According to Katz words, Paul is now qualified to have female breasts because of his girdle. The fact that Jesus is virtually the only character who wears a golden girdle (around the breasts) implies the femininity of his person (Rev. 1:13). Jesus wears a golden girdle for no apparent reason. We have already discussed why Paul wore a girdle, it wasn’t because he was female (the word mastos is not used), but to protect his valuables. On the contrary, the Book of Revelation depicts Jesus as feminine (and masculine) for esoteric reasons, and symbolic meanings.

Just because Paul wore a girdle does not imply that he was female. Similarly, the angels wearing golden girdles do not mean they are female. According to the Old Testament, the girdle is worn by men around the chest, but that doesn’t mean they are female (Isaiah 3:24, 22:12). First, the feminine word mastos is not even used in Revelation 15:6, instead the word stethos is used.

Here is the Greek Lexicon:

Strong’s Number: 4738

Transliterated Word:

Stethos

Phonetic

stay'-thos

Definition:

the breasts (*)

As you can see, the Greek word stethos simply means “breasts”. Yet, the case is different for Jesus because the Greek word mastos (used femininely in the Gospels) is applied to him. IF the author of Revelation wanted to depict the angels as female, he should’ve used the word “mastos”. Yet the Book of Revelation honors the angels by using stethos, and degrades Jesus by using mastos.

Notice how Jesus is depicted having female breasts (mastos) long before the angels appear.

HE WROTE:

But if the golden girdle makes the breast female in 1:13, then the same golden girdles make the breasts of the angels female in Rev. 15:6. Or rather the other way around. If golden girdles are not a sufficient reason to turn the chests of angels into female breasts in 15:6, then it isn't doing so in 1:13 either. Thank you, Smitty, for refuting your own source of inspiration!

RESPONSE:

You have absolutely no clue. The golden girdle does not necessary make someone female, so the angels wearing the golden girdle are not female. The golden girdles are traditionally worn by the Essenes (to cover their private parts), around the breasts and loins, but that doesn’t make them female. Tom Harper used the golden girdle as secondary evidence, but the core evidence is mastos.

The golden girdle is worn around the chest:

The men wear girdles, and the angels wear girdles, but they are not female! Yet, Jesus is a female because of the word mastos (not because of his golden girdle).

Pagan Influences in the Book of Revelation.

Revelation indicates a time of hostility towards Christianity, but if the book's pagan influences imply later editing, it also may indicate the attitude changes towards this new religion later in time. In the third and fourth centuries, Christian persecution began to become more widespread. As the church grew, it became more common to blame disaster on Christians. The real trouble started in 250 CE, when "Emperor Decius invoked the aid of the gods in his war against the Goths and required all citizens worship the state gods publicly. True Christians could not obey, and Decius instituted a major persecution."⁽²⁶⁾ Times didn't improve, and in 303 CE Emperor Diocletian "launched the most serious persecution inflicted on the Christians in the Roman Empire. The persecution horrified many pagans, and the plight and the demeanor of the martyrs often aroused pity and sympathy."⁽²⁷⁾ Shortly after Diocletian began his persecutions, Galerius ended the bloodshed in 311 and issued a decree that Christianity should be tolerated. But it wouldn't be until the year 394 that Christianity would become the official religion of the Roman Empire. This may have been the first major turning point for the early Christian church, though even in earlier times some pagans admired the Christians' plight. For example, Justin recalls seeing a group of Christians executed in the gladiatorial ring in the year 140 CE and realized the martyrs achieved the goal all philosophers strived for: "accepting death with equanimity, an accomplishment which the gladiators' bravado merely parodied."⁽²⁸⁾

This turn of events may explain some of the pagan influences in Revelation. During this time, "it was by no means unusual for people to worship new deities alongside the old and even intertwine elements of several to form a new amalgam by the device called syncretism (italics his)."⁽²⁹⁾ It was also possible to absorb elements from one religion into another. By incorporating pagan elements into Revelation, John (and any other authors responsible for editing the book) could make the vision familiar and understandable to potential pagan converts, and hopefully aid the conversion process. This certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility because Christianity has done its share of absorbing pagan ideas into it. Two of the religion's most important holidays are based on pagan holy days. Many popular fixtures of Christmas, like the Yule log, Christmas tree, and garland derive from pagan practices. The date for Christmas was believed to have been chosen on December 25th because it fell near the Winter Solstice and the Roman holiday of Saturnalia.⁽³⁰⁾ Easter is another Christian holiday that incorporated pagan traditions. Easter is named after the Teutonic goddess Ostara (also called Eastre), the goddess of spring. Ostara was a "goddess so dearly loved by the old Teutons, that even after the Christianity had been introduced they retained so pleasant a recollection of her, that they refused to have her degraded to the rank of a demon, like many of their other divinities, and they transferred her name to their great Christian feast."⁽³¹⁾ One of the key points to the pagan holiday was celebrate by exchanging colored eggs, seen as a symbol of the renewal of life. The Christians "continued to observe this rule, declaring, however, that the egg is also a symbol of the Resurrection."⁽³²⁾ Rather than lose these converts, the church probably saw it harmless to let them keep the name Ostara and the practice of coloring eggs. [1]

The Book of Revelation is the most doubted book:

The year 367 marks, thus, the first time that the scope of the New Testament canon is declared to be exactly the twenty-seven books accepted today as canonical. But not every one in the Church was ready to follow the opinion of the bishop of Alexandria. For example, the distinguished theologian and contemporary of Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 389), toward the end of his life drew up in verse (perhaps as an aid to the memory of his readers) a catalogue of the Biblical books. So far as concerns the Old Testament, he agrees with Athanasius, but when it comes to the New Testament he differs in placing the Catholic Epistles after the Pauline Epistles and, more significantly, in omitting Revelation. He then declares, '[In these you have all. And if there is anything outside of these, it is not among the genuine [books].' Although Gregory thus excludes the Apocalypse from the canon, he knows of its existence, and on rare occasions in his other works quotes from it. (B. M. Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development, 1997, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 212)

In the list of the New Testament books, Amphilochius reports some of the earlier debate concerning the Hebrews, the Catholic Epistles, and the Apocalypse. In fact, not only does he report the doubts of others concerning these books, but he himself appears to reject 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and almost certainly rejects Revelation. The most curious feature is that, having thus started the doubts as to the right of several books to be included in the sacred collection, the author ends with the incredible phrase: 'This is perhaps the most reliable canon of the divinely inspired Scriptures'! The presence of the word kanwn, meaning a hypothetical form of the sentence as a whole. In other words, here we have a bishop in Asia Minor, a colleague of the Gregories as of Basil, and yet he seems to be uncertain as to the exact nature of the canon! ibid., pp. 212-213.

Zwingli, at the Berne disputation of 1528, denied that Revelation was a book of the New Testament.

Martin Luther condemned the Epistle of James as worthless, an 'epistle of straw.' Furthermore, he denigrated Jude, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse (Revelation). He did not omit them from his German Bible, but drew a line in the table of contents, putting them on a lower level than the rest of the New Testament. In Prefaces to each of these books, Luther explains his doubts as to their apostolic as well as canonical authority.

The reformer known as Andreas Bodenstein of Karlstadt (1480-1541) divided the New Testament into three ranks of differing dignity. On the lowest level are the seven disputed books of James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse (Revelation).

Oecolampadius in 1531 under Wurttemberg Confession declared that while all 27 books should be received, the Apocalypse (Revelation), James, Jude, 2 Peter 2 and 3 John should not be compared to the rest of the books.

Early in his career, Erasmus (d. 1536) doubted that Paul was the author of Hebrews, and James of the epistle bearing the name. He also questioned the authorship of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. The style of Revelation precludes it from being written by the author of the Fourth Gospel.

The same four books are labeled 'Apocrypha' in a Bible from Hamburg in 1596. In Sweden, beginning in 1618, the Gustavus Adolphus Bible labels the four dubious books as 'Apocryphal New Testament.' This arrangement lasted for more than a century. [1]

The Book of Revelation is the most disputed and abused book, it has no divine authority and it was never inspired by God. In fact, the scholars Erasmus and Luther rejected the Book of Revelation.

There are many parallels between the Gospels and the Scriptures of other religions. Scholars have collected hundreds of similarities between Christ and the hindu god Krishna.

"I am the goal of life, the LORD and support of all, the inner witness, the abode of all. I am the only refuge, the ONE true friend; I am the beginning, the staying, and the end of creation; I am the womb and the eternal seed. I am heat; I give and withhold the rain. I am immortality and I am death; I am what is and what is not" [Bhagavad Gita 9:18-19]

This statement was plagiarized by the New Testament and put into Jesus’ mouth:

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Revelation 1:8)

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Revelation 22:13)

The Tektonic Failure:

The pagans of Answering Islam always link to the Tektonics website. Apparently, they are practically useless without Tektonics, so they link to this website to back up their claims. We shall refute the argument of Tektonics by scrutinizing Homer’s usage of mastos. The website Tektonics is engaged in dialogue with atheists, they defend the religion of Christianity (which is false) by using the works of Homer. For example, they argue that Homer’s manuscripts are lesser in quantity compared to the New Testament’s 5,000 Greek manuscripts. Yet, there is a logical explanation. The Roman Catholic Church acquired the power (by Constantine) to slaughter millions of animals to produce vellum parchment to write the New Testament. So the four Gospels were composed on animal hide. Homer did not have the authority to slaughter animals to make parchment, that’s why his manuscripts are few.

As for the abundance of New Testament manuscripts as opposed to the works of Homer, Euripides and Tacitus, this is something that is to be expected when Christianity grew and occupied the greater part of Europe, parts of North Africa and the Middle East. Obviously its religious needs also grew which resulted in the production of more manuscripts than the works of Homer, Euripides and Tacitus. Ehrman again points out:

... the New Testament is preserved in far more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity. There are for example, fewer than 700 copies of Homer's Iliad, fewer than 350 copies of the plays of Euripides, and only one copy of the first six books of the Annals of Tacitus... Of course, we would expect the New Testament to be copied in the Middle Ages more frequently than Homer or Euripides or Tacitus; the trained copyists throughout the Western world at the time were Christian scribes, frequently monks, who for the most part were preparing copies of texts for religious purposes. Still, the fact that we have thousands of New Testament manuscripts that were made during the Middle Ages, many of them nearly a thousand years after Paul and his companions had passed off the face of the earth, does not mean that we can rest assured that we know what the original text said. For if we have very few early copies, in fact, scarcely any, how can we know that the text was not changed significantly before it began to be reproduced in such large quantities? [1]

Regarding the Greek word mastos in Homer’s writings, it does not disprove the NT’s usage of mastos as exclusively identifying females. We cannot compare the works of Homer to the New Testament for several reasons.

(1). Homer wrote in a different context, his poetry was composed hundreds of years before Christianity.

(2). There was no reason for Homer to apply mastos specifically to females alone.

(3). There are no androgynous figures in the works of Homer, but Revelation is based on esoteric meaning ¹.

(4). The Book of Revelation depicted Jesus as bisexual to signify wholeness ², but Homer never depicted a man with female breasts!

Christians deny that Jesus was an androgynous figure, yet the Book of Revelation depicts Jesus as a bisexual. In conclusion, there is no evidence that Homer was a real person.

Tradition holds that Homer was blind, and various Ionian cities claim to be his birthplace, but otherwise little is known about his life. There is considerable scholarly debate about whether Homer was a real person, or the name given to one or more oral poets who sang traditional epic material. [1]

THEY WROTE:

Firstly, 'paps' simply means 'nipples.' Secondly, the only translation that uses the word 'paps' is the King James Version, translated in 1611. English has changed a lot since then. You should have consulted a modern translation. The verse simply refers to his 'chest' or 'breast.' Thirdly, note that the verse says 'son of man,' not 'daughter' or 'androgynous figure.' The verse does not imply an androgynous Christ.

RESPONSE:

The correct translation is “breasts” and not “paps”. The modern English Bibles wrongly translate mastos as “breast” or “chest”, the correct translation is “breasts” (mastos is plural). The verse does imply that Jesus has female breasts; the Greek New Testament always uses mastos for females, and stethos for males. It is true that Rev. 1:13 does not say ‘androgynous figure’ and ‘daughter’. The ‘Son of man’ denotes the masculine side, and mastos denotes the feminine side. As we have stated, the Book of Revelation depicts Jesus androgynously for esoteric reasons.

The KJV translation of mastos is “paps”, yet the modern Bibles translate mastos as “breast” or “chest”, which is wrong because the Greek word mastos is plural and should be translated “breasts”. The King James Version (1611) was produced in Old English, so the word “paps” is erroneous. The accurate translation is “breasts”.

Apparently, the Bible editors were too embarrassed to translate the word mastos as “breasts”. Instead, they translated it as “chest” or “breast” to deceive the readers. Any student of the Greek language will testify that mastos is plural and not singular. Why do the Bible editors avoid the plural “breasts?” This article is worth reading regarding Jesus, gender and God.

The Homosexual Missionary

Recently I have received a plethora of email exchanges between "Answering Islam" and the warriors of Answering Christianity on the subject of Sam Shamoun's homosexuality. I am quite surprised that Shamoun has turned out be a homosexual, a gay missionary attacking Islam because he has nothing better to do.

The gay missionary Shamoun has been caught on tape, expressing his gay tendencies to rape young boys. This sick and perverted missionary is worse than Jimmy Swaggart, who was caught with a prostitute. No wonder Christians are overtly sinful, they have no morality and shame. Yet, the gay missionaries are proselytizing the Muslims in so many countries.

Here are the audio and emails that exposes Shamoun: [1] [2] [3] [4]

Shamoun probably became a hardcore gay after visiting the following sites:

www.christiangays.com

www.christianlesbians.com

www.sexinchrist.com

Not only is Sam a gay man, but he is mentally sick. Please visit the following links:

Nine new captured images exposing Sam Shamoun's foul mouth

Another incident where Sam Shamoun insults with his foul-mouth.

Sam Shamoun's bad and foul manners exposed.

Sam Shamoun is despised by Christians!

The Church is plagued with rape and incest, priests and pastors having sex with young boys.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207767,00.html

http://online.recordnet.com/articlelink/013005/news/articles/013005-gn-7.php

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=35522

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/01/03/harmon.html

I personally believe Shamoun is a homosexual, and it’s too late to deny that charge.

Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.

Rebuttals to Sam Shamoun section.

Islam and the Noble Quran - Questions and Answers.

Contradictions and History of Corruption in the Bible.

Abdullah Smith's Rebuttals section.

Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.