ra35b gangbangslanghangmanbloodfeudwrath&racewars?

Whatever languages Yesh may (or may as well not) have spoken, there is no reason to think he could also read or write in any of them, not even Aramaic. Lucky Luke's account of a twelve-year-old Yeshu standing in the Temple of Yerushalayim debating the finer points of the Hebrew Scriptures with rabbis and scribes (2:42-52), or his narrative of Yeshu at the (nonexistent) synagogue in Natsereth reading from the Yeshayahu scroll to the utter astonishment of the Pharisees (4:16-22), are both fabulous concoctions, according to Reza Aslan, of the euangelist's own devising! Yehoshua could nòt have hàd access to the kind of formal education necessary to make Luke's account even remotely credible? There were no school in NATSERET at thàt time for peasant children to attend! Whàt education Yesh dìd receive would have come directly from his family, considering his status as an artisan & day laborer, it would have been likely almost exclusively focused on learning the trade of his father and his brothers! That Yeshu HÀD brothers (& sisters) is, despite the Roman Catholic doctrine of his mother Miryam's perpetual virginity, virtually indisputable one way or another? It is a fact attested to repeatedly by both the gos-pels and the euangelical letters of Sja'ul Paul (SP)! Even Josephus references Yeshua's brother Ya'acov/James, who would become the most important leader of the early Christian church after YEHOSHUA'S death sentence & like very cruel deadly final execution? There is no rational argument that can be made against the notion that "Jesus" wàs very much pàrt of a large family that included! at least some four brothers - Ya'acov, Joseph, Sjim'on and Yehudah - ànd an unknown number of sisters as well who, while mentioned in the gospels, are unfortunately not námed! Even far less is really known about Yeshua's father, Joseph, who very quickly disappears from the gospels after the initial infancy narratives! The consensus is that Joseph died one way or another while Yesh was still a little child? But there are also those who like to believe Joseph never actually existed: that he also was a creation of Mat & Luke - the only euangelists who really do mention him - to account for a far more contentious creation: the so called 'virgin' birth? On the one hand, the fact that both Mark & Luke recount this 'virgin birth' in their respective infancy narratives, despite the belief that they were completely unaware of each other' s work, indicates that this tradition of the virgin birth was an early onem perhaps predating the supposedly first gospel, Mark. On the other hand, outside of Mat & Luke's infancy narratives, this supposedly virgin birth is never even hinted at by anyone else in the New Testament: not by the euangelist Yochanan/Iohannos/John, who prefers to present hìs version of Y. as an unworldly spirit without earthly origins, nor by SP, who rather thinks of Jesus as literally "G d incarnate": this absence has led to a great deal of speculation among scholars over whether that funny story of the 'virgin birth' was simply fashionably invented to mask an uncomfortable repressed truth about Jesus's parentage - namely, that he was born out of wedlock!? Also this is thus actually a very old sort of argument, one made by opponents of the Jesus Movement from its earliest days?!