A Theory of Negroid Ureao-Christian Dogma

Steve,

Although you are a half-wit of average intellect, you have stumbled upon one of the more interesting controversies of Christian scholarship. Don't get too full of yourself, it was purely an accident, and given more time, I could prove to you to a scientific certainty that an inebriated babboon has higher cognitive powers than you.

Regardless of your shrill wife's lust for a white Jesus, according to many revisionist Christian scholars, Jesus was indeed very black. And his name wasn't Jesus. Nor was his last name Christ. His name, loosely translated from Aramaic, was Cletus Jefferson. He was not from Nazareth, but from what is modern day Detroit. And he was not a carpenter, but a chariot repairman. He was exceptionally skilled at fixing wheels. He ended up in Nazareth through a series of serio-comic misadventures involving the Loch Ness monster and a very shy and misunderstood yeti name Brell.

The early Christian Church had been very, VERY confused by who or what their messiah was. Moreover, somehow drinking their own urine became a staple of their early religious practies, and no one knew how (the current theory is that due to hanging around Cletus/Jesus and his endless supply of wine, the apostles and early Christians were raging drunks).

Around 60 AD, the early Christians had a make-over. First, they penned the Gospels and the other books in the New Testament (utter fiction, and over-wrought fiction at that). A couple of centuries later, someone got to Constantine when he was loaded on lead-laced wine, and suddenly this "Christianity" caught fire. Some confused Nordic-types decided to mix in tree worship and fat old white men, and, voila, you have "Christmas."

The black Jesus was accurate. Earl's urine, oddly prophetic. For in the original Christianity, urine will figure prominently in the Rapture. More on that another time.