Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry


"The Gospel of Matthew, the Fraud!" by Vexen Crabtree (1999)



2003-08-01 08:26 am (UTC)

Would you kindly send me the
Matthew Chapter 20 1-16

Thank you for your kind response......

You are trying to cover truth with lies


2004-11-06 02:09 am (UTC)

ALMAH" is used seven times in the Hebrew Bible, and in each instance it either explicitly means a virgin or implies it, because in the Bible "`ALMAH" always refers to an unmarried woman of good reputation. In Genesis 24:43 it applies to Rebecca, Isaac's future bride, already spoken of in Genesis 24:16 as a B'TULAH. In Exodus 2:8 it describes the infant Moshe's older sister Miryam, a nine- year-old girl and surely a virgin. (Thus the name of Yeshua's mother recalls this earlier virgin.) The other references are to young maidens being courted (Proverbs 30:19) and virgins of the royal court (Song of Songs 1:3, 6:8). In each case the context requires a young unmarried woman of good reputation, i.e., a virgin.

Moreover, Mattityahu here is quoting from the Septuagint, the first of the TANAKH into Greek. More than two centuries before Yeshua was born, the Jewish translators of the Septuagint chose the Greek word "PARTHENOS" to render "`ALMAH." "PARTHENOS" unequivocally means "VIRGIN." This was long before the New Testament made the matter controversial.

Re: You are trying to cover truth with lies


2005-02-04 01:06 am (UTC)

Thank you for stepping up and taking a stand. I admire that sooo much. You helped me when i was looking for research on how CHristianity improves schools,and peoples morals in schools for a research paper i have to do. It's so sad to see how many people are trying to escape the truth. this site almost made me extrememly mad, but instead has shown me hope, maybe this site will upset those who believe in Christ, and just arent living it.

Re: Pathetic and futile


2006-02-22 09:09 pm (UTC)

*sigh* I hate rhetoric as an attempt to prove a ridiculously blind beliefs to ease a shaky ego. That's what religion does to the masses. Sanctimony is truly our bane, a mental disease, and a cancer of the ego. Isaiah 7.14 speaks of a girl "who is presently a virgin." Not when the baby is delivered! What does it matter anyway? Matthew and Luke try to prove Jesus being a decendent of David through Joseph! That being because back then the only way a person was considered to be a decendent of someone was through the father since the ovary wasn't discovered until the year 1812. Your sophistic perversion of philology doesn't change this.

Amen     hotep   0á  


2004-11-10 04:50 am (UTC)

[Transcript of an audio recording]

*clap of thunder followed by a background ghostly robotic music*

“Myriad moons ago, in the land of Pharaoh, there came to power a Being of wondrous propensities.
He was called Amenhotep IV. Amemhotep IV envisioned, and then implemented, a monumental and unsurpassed addition to culture. Amenhotep IV was the first to have a society introduced to the theology of a one-god religion. Yes, Amenhotep IV institutionalized monotheism, a religion of one god.

This was a true monotheism, not the polytheism that Judaism, Christianity and Islam, each usually having at least two gods ~ the one all-benevolent, the other all-evil ~ have been for hundreds and hundreds of years.
Yes, Amenhotep proclaimed the Aten, the Sun God, as the only god in all the universe; he even changed his name to reflect this new devotional imagery.

No prosaic Pharaoh was he, the works of Egyptian art were advanced to a vastly, almost impressionist, beautiful form.
Of course when a vast change comes many resist it. After all, the feebleminded peasants were content to have had their religion spoonfeed to them by, less than astute, ancestors.
The established priests didn’t want one-god concepts cutting into their lucrative, wholly unholy, business.

Nevertheless, the Pharaohs were considered gods in their own right.
Ergo, any opposition to the new religion was wee and reserved. But the only people to sincerely embrace Amenhotep’s religion were the upperclass, very well educated members of his governmental theocratic oligarchy. This was no small number, the ancient Egyptian government was a vast institution.

Not terribly long after Amenhotep’s demise the priests and peasants of the polytheist deities were once again able to gain political power.
They began a systematic, and extremely well financed, program of wiping any trace of the reign of Amenhotep IV from the face of the Earth. His name, original as well as his new, were obliterated from temple, obelisk, monument and papyrus.
The polytheist re-writers of history were very efficient, but not 100% so. Monotheism’s followers were also persecuted.
To even utter the former Pharaoh’s name was a crime punishable by a sound thrashing or even death!
Thus, these believes in a single god, who used to end all prayers by speaking the new name Amenhotep had chosen, reverted back to ending their supernally aimed beseeching with the words - “Freed From Doubt by Amenhotep.”

But this was also seen as a blasphemous act by the ancient polytheistic spin-doctors. So, they needed to conclude their prayers, to their singular god, with another sound of solemn ratification.
And that way soon became the word - - - AMEN !

Moreover, those who descended from Amenhotep’s followers, though many changes have been made to their religion over the long years, became know as.....the Jews.

*music now becomes the gospel classic “Amen” with a satirical lyrical redo*

Amen hotep amen
Groovin’ with his sweety
her name was Nefertiti
amen hotep amen
real style down by the Nile
a pile of pâté crocodile
amen hotep hotep

{ fin }
[To hear this work and “Jesus Christ the Facts” (The history of how Ovid created the Jesus of Nazareth/Christ character) check the URL.]




2005-02-28 06:38 pm (UTC)

You have some good information on your site, but several of your points are not correct.

Herod the Great is noted by Joshephus to have killed several of his own children. Given the size of Bethlehem at the time, it is estimated that about 2 dozen children would have been younger than two. I am not saying that Herod did order this act, but evidence leads us to believe that this event was completely possible.

It is also important to understand that these are not written accounts of Jesus' life by the disciples. These were the teachings and understanding of community, and what they had come to believe about Jesus. Even if none of these events are historically accurate, it speaks volumes that the community thought so much Jesus that they believed this.

Gospel of Matthew


2006-01-09 09:48 pm (UTC)

The Gospel of Matthew contains a great deal of astronomical and astrological allegory. The Gospel was apparently written for the 'scientists' (astrologers/astronomers) of that time.
Matthew's gospel contains some astrological/astronomical information that is 'encoded' in some of the dimensions of The Great Pyramid at Giza.
See, http://www.templeofsolomon.org (generally) for more complete information.

Hi, I know I'm several months late on this, but I've just been pointed to yuor page, and I had a quick question; you say that the first two chapters of Matthew were not in the original version of Matthew's Gospel, but you don't provide a source for this, and it's not something I've heard elsewhere; could you clarify? Where does this claim come from, and how can it possibly be verified, in the absence of an original first edition copy (as it were) of Matthew's writings?

Matthew Fraud


2008-03-07 01:26 pm (UTC)

You appear not to have understood the word "According".
i.e. The Gospel According To Matthew.
Not in the sense that Matthew wrote the Gospel but "According" to Matthew this Gospel is true.
Posted by and serious replys to:
Alexander McMillan

Not fact-based


2008-06-10 12:17 am (UTC)

"how did Jesus leave the tomb undetected? Did he teleport?" First of all, if Jesus was God, I'm pretty sure he could teleport if he wanted to. Second of all, he later appears to the disciples in a house that was locked; he got in without opening the door, simply appearing in their midst- so obviously, Jesus can "teleport". Also, when Isiah prophecies saying that a child named Immanuel would be born, a child named Maher-shalal-hash-baz does not fufill this prophecy. It does not make sense in context at all to say that Mary was not a virgin; it explicitly mentions in 1:25 that Joseph did not sleep with Mary until she gave birth, and in 1:18 that Mary was with child from the Holy Spirit. You also completely lack proof that Matthew made up these claims. Again, with the star, it is biased to assume that matthew made this event up simply because it is not documented elsewhere. Also your translation of 2:1 is incorrect; these are "wise men". I don't see anyone from the time saying there wasn't a star. The killing of all the male children is indeed an event that has occured several times in history and in myth. This is no reason to assume that matthew made it up. In moses' time, all male children are being killed because the Pharoah is afraid that the Israelites will overthrow him. Herod is now afraid that the new "king" will overthrow him. The undercurrents of meaning here are a connection between old and new saviors and do not in any way suggest that Matthew made this up. A preposterous claim like this, if it was a lie, would never have survived the scrutiny of eyewitnesses at the time. Also, do you really think Matthew was such an idiot as to think that Jesus could ride on two donkeys at one time? The word "them" in the passage refers to the cloaks that Jesus sat on on the colt, not that he sat on both donkey and colt. Finally there is no reason to suppose that the sun did not darken,etc. If anyone would have the sun darken when they died it would probably be Jesus, the only son of God. Finally, you seem to be approaching this through the tactic of assuming Matthew was wrong and then trying to justify that by saying he was lying or by inventing "errors" with no basis in fact.

Your Matthew-fraud essay


2010-10-19 07:25 pm (UTC)

Your Matthew-fraud essay came from the mind of someone who hasn't grasped the Scriptures in context and has no knowledge of the "OT". Please read the articles on my "Challenging Christianity" page: http://therefinersfire.org/challenging_christianity.htm

The Refiner's Fire

Do you know about Hebrew Matthew?


2010-12-03 09:18 am (UTC)

I came across a link


Do you know about it? It contains no references to a virgin birth and many other significant differences from the King James version of Matthew.

It has been translated only once, from Hebrew to English.

Very illuminating.

Friend, I gotta ask, where are your facts coming from? Reading your article Matthew, in the 1st few paragraphs I read that Q was an original disciple of Christ or friend of Paul, and that the Septuagint was a 6th century CE translation! Q is a hypothetical document, and the Septuagint is a 3rd century BCE translation (which it would have to be in order to be considered a prophecy of Jesus). If I am in error, please let me know. Be well...

You are viewing vexen