Jesus and Christ

скачать книгу бесплатно


– Now let's go textually. All of the New Testament sacred books are written in Greek, but not in classical Greek, but in the vernacular Alexandrian dialect of Greek, the so-called "koine," which was understood by the entire cultured population of the Eastern and Western Roman Empire. This is why the evangelists wrote in this language, in order to make the New Testament holy books accessible to the reading and understanding of all educated citizens. Only the capital letters of the Greek alphabet were used for writing, without punctuation or even separating one word from another. Small letters began to be used only since IX century, as well as separate writing of words. Punctuation marks were introduced only after the invention of printing in the 15th century. The present division into chapters was made in the West by Cardinal Hugues in the 13th century, and the division into verses by the Parisian printer Robert Stephan in the 16th century. In the second half of the ninth century the New Testament sacred books were translated into the "Slovensk language", to some extent common to all Slavic tribes. The modern Russian translation was made in the first half of the XIX century… Now a little about the time of writing of the Gospels. The time of writing of each of them cannot be determined with unconditional accuracy. There is a prevailing opinion, agreement, on the time period: they were all written in the second half of the first century. This opinion comes from the fact that many ancient chroniclers, philosophers, and authors make references to certain New Testament holy books. However, there are other opinions as well. And, let me tell you, very plausible ones. Plausible – in the sense of supported by analysis and research. For example, Bruno Bauer – German Hegelian philosopher, theologian, religious scholar, biblical scholar, historian and publicist – refutes the historical reliability and authenticity of the Gospels and other sacred books, attributing their appearance to a much later time. Bauer believes that many of the religious texts, ideas and thoughts contained in them are rewritten, borrowed from the writings of the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, who lived in Egypt in the 20s-54s AD. Of course, they were slightly modified and interpreted in their own way. In particular, in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, Bauer finds the entire theology of the Evangelist John in an almost ready-made form. There are differing opinions about the authenticity of this whole story, but, you understand, there are more proponents of authenticity. At least for now. This was accompanied by both the general mood for change and the desire of those in power to adapt the teachings to their propaganda. And already derivative were such factors as … in general, the Crusades, and propaganda, and scribes, and politicians worked on it, in particular, the same Bruno considered Christianity an invention not Jewish, but Greco-Roman, and most importantly – the Inquisition. However, the main trump card to the opponents of authenticity is given by the same believers in authenticity. The fact is that, in addition to the official Gospels, there are other, up to 50 other writings claiming apostolic origin. The Church has placed them on the list of "apocryphal" – that is, unreliable, rejected books. These books contain distorted and questionable narratives. But, please note, this is from the perspective of theologians. Primarily Christian theologians. Such apocryphal gospels include the First Gospel of James, the History of Joseph the Carpenter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Nicodemus, and others. In them, by the way, are recorded for the first time legends relating to the childhood of Jesus Christ… Another fact in favor of those who reject the authenticity of history is the classification of these writings. You can't buy them or borrow them from the library. Which brings to mind. Oh yes, I almost forgot, they try not to even mention them, so you don't even have to wonder what's in them. Apparently, there is something there, besides the narrative of the life and teachings of Christ, his crucifixion, death and burial, and after his resurrection from the dead, which is intended for the congregation, that should not cause questions and doubts in the minds of parishioners. And not only parishioners.

The theologian was silent for a moment.

– In general, I would not like to emphasize the opinion about faith and unbelief, but I will note that both atheists and people who are more inclined to seek a scientific explanation for everything that happens, including history, have the right to their opinion. For some reason, no one considers it an offense to atheists' belief that there is no God to assert that God exists. After all, atheists believe they are right too. It may seem strange to hear me, a representative of the church, say this, but it is the lack of entitlement of atheists to be equal to those who believe in God that speaks to the fear of their faith. Okay, let's not talk about arguments, although the whole story and its subsequent application is based on an argument. After all, disputes exist within Christian denominations as well. What to speak of different faiths among themselves. For me, all these disputes give birth to the truth or at least give an alternative point of view on the statements taken as a basis. And all the more from the scientific side they open the picture of the world in different perspectives, including its mythological hypostasis. Here, for example, is an interesting one. The usual symbol for the four Gospels is the mysterious chariot seen by the prophet Ezekiel at the river Hovar, which consisted of four creatures that resembled a man, a lion, a calf and an eagle. These creatures, taken individually, became emblems for the evangelists. Christian art since the 5th century depicts Matthew with a man or angel, Mark with a lion, Luke with a calf, John with an eagle. Of the four Gospels, the content of the first three – Matthew, Mark, and Luke – is much the same. They are called synoptic, from the Greek word "synopsis," which means "an account in one general pattern." The Synoptic Gospels tell mainly about the activities of the Lord Jesus Christ in Galilee, while the Evangelist John tells of them in Judea. The Synoptics write nothing about Jesus' life in the early years. Nothing about his life in Judea or Jerusalem. Although we can understand from their narrative that he had supporters and friends there. For example, the owner of the upper room where the Last Supper took place and Joseph of Arimathea. The main difference between the Synoptics and the Evangelist John lies in the conversations of the Lord. With the Synoptics these conversations are very simple, easy to understand; with the Evangelist John, they are deep, mysterious, and often difficult to understand. The Synoptics bring out the more human side of Christ, while John mostly brings out the divine side. To better interpret and understand the Gospels, we need to become more familiar with the personality, character, and life of each of the four evangelists and the circumstances under which each of the four Gospels was written.

The scientist took a few moments to catch his breath and began to speak with renewed vigor:

– Let's begin with the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew was one of the 12 apostles of Christ. The evangelists Mark and Luke call him Levi. It was the custom of the Jews to have several names. Before his call to apostolic ministry, he was a tax collector, and as such was certainly disliked by his fellow Jews, and especially by the spiritual leaders of the Jewish people, the scribes and Pharisees. However, having received the favor of Christ, having seen in him the possibility of repentance and change of his essence, he became his devoted follower and especially took to heart the cause of salvation of his native Jewish people, so saturated by that time with false notions and Pharisaic views. Therefore, his Gospel is considered to have been written primarily for the Jews. In his presentation, Matthew's main goal is to prove to them that Jesus Christ is the Messiah spoken of by the prophets of the Old Testament; that the Old Testament revelation, which had been obscured by the scribes and Pharisees, is clarified and given its perfect meaning only in Christianity. Here I must make it clear: the Jews themselves, the adherents of the Jewish religion, do not in any way take Christ for the Messiah, or even for a prophet. Matthew preached in Palestine for a long time. Then he went to other countries to preach, and ended his life as a martyr in Ethiopia.

Ffitnop habitually looked around the audience and announced:

– Let's turn to the Gospel of Mark. Many people believe that all the authors of the Gospels are apostles of Christ. But this is not the case. Mark, for example, was not one of the twelve apostles. By the way, this is an important indicator that makes us doubt the full reality of all the stories given to the world from the evangelists. For some reason, the Gospels from the apostles themselves, those who were directly involved, are hidden. Or are off-limits for public perusal. But Mark was not a constant companion and listener of the Lord, as, for example, Matthew was. He wrote his Gospel with the words and under the guidance of the apostle Peter. By the way, Mark also bore the name of John. By the way, in this regard, pay attention to the revolutionary nicknames of Lenin's associates and in general, ask about their real surnames, and their first names and patronymics too. All right, let's not get distracted. I'll tell you about it sometime later.

The scientist smiled enigmatically.

– Mark accompanied the apostle Paul on his first journey, along with another companion, Barnabas, to whom he was either a nephew or a cousin. According to tradition, the Apostle Peter made Mark the first bishop of the Church of Alexandria. There Mark was martyred, I would say killed. As I said, Mark wrote his Gospel from the words of the Apostle Peter. It says very little about the relationship of the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ to the Old Testament and makes very few references to Old Testament holy books. For some reason he does not even write about the Sermon on the Mount. But in his Gospel he wrote inspiringly about the miracles of Christ. The miracles he allegedly performed, or maybe not even allegedly. But here I must remind those who know, or explain to those who do not know – miracles are forbidden in Christianity. Remember the fires of the Inquisition. And in general, there is such a cool technique, it is aimed at preventing the appearance of the messiah not by the will and not under the control of those who control the church, and through it the believers. So, this is such a tricky trick, which says: when the messiah comes, as if the Second Coming will be accomplished, before that there must be the Antichrist, he will proclaim himself the messiah, and those who are waiting, almost all of them, will accept him. And one of the reasons why he will be accepted will be the performance of miracles. And it is a cunning move, because always a "stranger", that is not from the clan of his confession, can be called a false messiah, even if he complies with all the canons. And in this tactical move, anyone can be called an antichrist, even if he conforms to the doctrine of the second coming. First recognized, and then, if out of control, branded the devil and Satan. At worst, a sorcerer. This technique is another component in the complex formula of the divine definition of creation. And Mark has made a very important contribution there. In his Gospel Jesus is already presented as a deity. If Matthew still perceives him as a "son of David", because, according to tradition, the Messiah, i.e. the savior, must be from this family, Mark calls him the Son of God, the Lord and Master, the King of the Universe.

This was followed by another scanning gaze of the listeners in the best traditions of the gendarmes of the Inquisition. It seemed that Nomor saw something else behind the holographic images of experts, penetrated through their virtual gaze into real souls. Apparently satisfied, he exhaled. The effect created by the muffled sound had a strange, slightly unpleasant, but magical impression, as if the scientist held something inside him that hypnotized the audience.

– Next is the Gospel of Luke," said the servant of God with a smile. – What can be said about him? B was a physician as well as a painter. His Gospel contains Jesus' instructions to the 70 disciples in great detail, which is a logical indication that he belonged to them. By the way, many are convinced that there were only 12 supporters of Christ. In fact, there were many more. Luke often accompanied the apostle Paul in his travels, and after his death he preached, then took martyrdom in Achaia. His holy relics were transferred to Constantinople in the 4th century along with the relics of the Apostle Andrew. Luke wrote his Gospel at the request of a nobleman, Theophilus, who lived in Antioch. That's modern-day Antalya, by the way. What is interesting is that he used not only oral recollections of Christ from people who knew the story of Jesus, but also pre-existing records of him. It is difficult to determine when he wrote his gospel. There are different estimates. Some scholars date it hundreds of years after the events described. He himself writes of his painstaking analysis of existing records and oral traditions about Christ. In addition, he wrote his Gospel as if to order, at the request of Theophilus, who, by the way, did not live in Judea and did not visit Jerusalem, because Luke makes various geographical explanations about this area. But on such points as Syracuse, Rigia, Puteol in Italy, Appian Square and three inns in Rome, the evangelist Luke makes no explanations at all. It is logical to assume the client knew these places. According to Clement of Alexandria, who lived at the beginning of the third century, Theophilus was a rich and noble resident of Antioch, he was most likely the head of the local Christian sect. In his house he set up a temple for the Antioch Christians. Paul's ideology and worldview is evident in his Gospel. This is expressed, among other things, in the emphasis on the idea that the Messiah came to earth not only for the Jews, but for the whole world, all people. He traces the genealogy of Jesus from Adam, the ancestor of all mankind, to God in order to emphasize his importance for the whole world. He reveals such an idea in such events as the healing of Nehemiah the Syrian from leprosy by the prophet Elisha, the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Publican and the Pharisee. In the description of these events there is a clear stylistics of the apostle Paul's teaching about the salvation not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles, and about the justification of man before God not by the works of the law, but by the grace of God. He portrayed the love of God for repentant sinners very vividly, and gives in his gospel many parables and actual events on this subject. For example, the parables of the lost sheep, the lost drachma, the merciful Samaritan, and the story of the repentance of the chief of the tax collectors named Zacchaeus. Significant words about "that so in heaven there will be more joy in one sinner repenting than in ninety-nine righteous men who have no need of repentance." The Gospel of Luke was most likely written in Rome. This again shows that Rome, as the power in the region, used the proclaimed teachings of Christ for ideological processing to control and subdue more and more plebeians. You hopefully know who the patricians and plebeians are.

Without waiting for a reaction from his listeners other than lazy smiles, the theology professor continued:

– Let's move on to the Gospel of John. The evangelist John, later called the Theologian, was one of Christ's favorite, and perhaps the most beloved, disciples. His father was a fisherman, but most likely not a simple one. This is evidenced by the presence of employees, which at that time was considered a fact of wealth. In addition, his father had a solid position in society, for his son John was acquainted with the high priest. His mother, Solomia, is mentioned among the wives who served the Lord with their property. What does it mean? This is another proof of my interpretation that this whole story is not a simple altruistic impulse of the soul, asking people to be kinder, not to kill, not to steal, etc., but a struggle of political forces. Accordingly, there were supporters, and the financial component played a significant role. Solomia, by the way, followed Jesus to Jerusalem for the last Passover and participated in the purchase of aromas for anointing his body together with other Myrrh-bearing wives. There is a very interesting fact here. Tradition considers her to be the daughter of Joseph the Betrothed. And who is Joseph the Handmaiden? Yes, yes, someone may be surprised, but this is the same Joseph to whom Mary was married, who, as we know, let me say biblically, had in her womb. John learned about Christ by being a disciple of John the Baptist. Don't confuse the two, please. Many do. Then, after an almost magical catch of fish on the Lake of Galilee, Jesus himself called him, along with his brother James, to join his ranks. Together with Peter and his brother James, he was by Christ's side at the most important events. For example, he was present at the raising of Jairus' daughter, saw the transfiguration of the Lord on the mountain, heard the conversation about the signs of his Second Coming, and witnessed his Gethsemane prayer. Here again I am going a little bit away from the main line. And I apologize right away. You probably realized that I want to voice my version, my vision. I have already said that we must remain cold empiricists, even if we believe in Christ, we must always ask ourselves the question – how is it possible? Exactly what is written about in the Gospels. It is easy to say "God did this magic because he is God", but not everyone can understand how it really happened. And I also want to speak about the so-called holy lie. When a lie is given for salvation. So, in my interpretation of everything that happened in this story there is a holy lie, or a lie for salvation. You may have realized, I don't believe in miracles and all these miraculous events. That is, for me, Jesus was conceived as a man, resurrected spiritually – in people's minds, all these miracles are a religious interpretation of events, a theological interpretation, a lie for salvation. The salvation of people who don't believe in such things. If, of course, they need such salvation. The bottom line: only the desire to realize it in reality, the belief in it, will lead mankind to the real realization of everything.

The theologian looked at his listeners appraisingly.

– Now let's get on with the subject. He received the nickname "thimble", which later became a nickname, because he was very close to Christ at the Last Supper. This closeness was also manifested when Jesus, being nailed to the cross, entrusted his mother to him, saying to him, "Behold your mother!" John the Theologian's mother was the daughter of Joseph the Handmaiden, she was Jesus' sister by his father (stepfather) and John was his nephew. Joseph was of advanced age at the time of his marriage to Mary, and she was about 14-15 years old at the time of her marriage, which gives estimates of the ages of both John and his mother. Joseph married his daughter off to his brother (such were the mores of the time) after returning from escaping to Egypt. John was not much younger than Christ. John was very angry when anyone judged Christ or expressed doubts. He even asked his permission to rain fire on a Samaritan village because they did not accept him. Here I ask you to pay attention to such a thing. You don't believe in the commandment "thou shalt not kill", then you can and should be killed. That's my black humor. It kind of comes out that way, don't you agree? Subsequently, the place of John's life and activity is the city of Ephesus in Asia Minor. In the reign of Emperor Domitian he was sent into exile on the island of Patmos, where he wrote the Apocalypse. When he returned from this exile to Ephesus, he wrote his Gospel there and died his death, the only one of the apostles, at a profound old age, almost 105 years old. Although his death, according to tradition, was mysterious. John wrote his Gospel at the request of the Ephesian Christians. They brought him the first three Gospels and asked him to complete them. By the way, here too is an interesting point, it is strange that he was not familiar with these writings and they did not agree with him on their vision and interpretations of the life and teachings of Christ. Having familiarized himself with the written Gospels, he found in them a realistic account of events, but being very close to Christ, knowing the secret doctrine, he found it necessary to add to their narrative the doctrine of the divine hypostasis of Jesus Christ. He explained it, – or, perhaps, later churchmen put it in such a way, so that people in the course of time would not think of him only as the son of man. There's another point to decipher here. Stories about the divine conception, about the son of God, about miracles performed were well known in the ancient world. To expound them, to confirm their authenticity and to "guide" the belief in such a miracle was the exclusive right of the Holiness, who governed the souls and thoughts of men. Therefore, to take the role of gods, to convince the flock of their divinity was a blasphemous deed. Just as it is now. So, at first, all these stories connected with Christ were perceived by those in authority and the people with doubt. The more seriously the people were persuaded, the more the power class became involved, the more angry and irritated they became. And after they, the followers of Christ, declared his resurrection and began to convince the people of it – the fury was unbelievable. Accordingly, refutations began to appear. Moreover, people did not lack logic. The point is that the diversity of gods in the ancient world was also considerable. But the trick of the followers of Christ was in the proclamation of the super-god, the most important, the most important for all. It was almost an insult to the power caste and nobility, and in fact it was, an insult to the elite. After all, it was God who allowed them to rule, gave them people to serve. And here someone declares that all are equal before God. In general, John realized the dangerous tendency in time and in his Gospel he made Jesus God. The opposite front, realizing that the power could go, so to speak, to the masses, saw the danger for itself and strengthened the policy of refutation. Speaking in church language, so-called heresies began to appear, denying the divinity of Christ – Evionites and Gnostics. In the Gospel of John there are even testimonies of Jesus about himself as the son of God. This, too, is an important aspect to uncover the politics of the confrontation. How to put it in a softer way. For example, someone will say: I am the son of God, I was sent to the earth to save you. I think you get my point. You can say whatever you want, that you are popular, loved by everyone, talented, worthy of Nobel and other prizes, that you are from God and so on, but as long as you are not recognized as such by the society, you will not be such. That is, in the case of Christ, he most likely did not say such things about himself. Moreover, it is not found in other testimonies and previous Gospels before John. With the Gospel of John begins the story in which man, the son of man, struggling for the freedom of people, for the understanding of their common brother-sisterhood, for the understanding of some common divine substance of humanity, turns into a magical deity. That is, into the one with whom Jesus himself fought. This is such a paradox… An important feature of John's Gospel is also the fact that while the first three evangelists narrate mainly the preaching of Jesus Christ in Galilee, John recounts the events and speeches that took place in Judea. With this we can calculate the length of Christ's public ministry and at the same time the length of his earthly life. Jesus preached more in Galilee, and traveled to Jerusalem for all the major feasts. According to the Gospel of John, there were only three such journeys to Jerusalem for the Feast of Passover, and before the fourth Passover of his public ministry he died on the Cross. It follows that the Lord's public ministry lasted about three and a half years. As Luke testifies, Jesus went out into public ministry about 30 years of age. This means that he lived on earth for only thirty-three and a half years.

The professor thought for a moment.

– Now let's look at the perception of the gospel and biblical stories from different angles by supporters and opponents, that is, believers and, so to speak, not really. Those who are "not quite" consider the following to be the main proof of their doctrine: Christians invented the virgin conception of Jesus to emphasize the importance of his person. This is their central myth. All the evangelists write about Jesus' birth from Mary, her conception without an earthly father. Let's see how it is described in the Gospels, for example, in Matthew; the nativity of Jesus Christ was like this: "after the betrothal of his mother Mary to Joseph, before they were joined together, it appeared that she had in her womb of the Holy Spirit. But Joseph, her husband, being righteous and not wanting to make her public, wanted to let her go in secret. But when he thought of it, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife, for that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit; but she will bear a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:18-21). And here is what Evangelist Luke says: "In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to the city of Galilee, called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David; and the name of the virgin was Mary. The angel came to her and said, "Rejoice, O Most Gracious One! The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women. But when she saw him, she was troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting it would be. And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found grace with God; and behold, you will conceive in the womb and bear a Son, and you will call His name Jesus… Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, when I do not know my husband?" (Luke 1:26-35)

The theologian was meaningfully silent.

– Please pay attention here and draw conclusions. First of all, in the first case she knows about her pregnancy… or at least Joseph knows from somewhere. If we take her ignorance as truth, then it is absurd. The next conclusion is that the Gospels were written at different times, with a disregard for accuracy, sloppiness in the approach to the work, or incompetence on the part of the scribes. Why? Here's why. Look at the dialog between Mary and the Angel. Based on it, Mary did not know she was pregnant. But in Matthew's story, she did. At least she should have known, and not just her. Otherwise, how did Joseph know? Or, if we take such a version, she grew a belly before time, Joseph, having realized the essence, was indignant, then for her it should not have been news for sure. And also – look at Luke's description: in fact, she is not pregnant yet, based on the angel's warning, "…and behold, you will conceive (!!!) in the womb…". This is just an example of how the story is told. Let's not cling to words. For, let me also explain myself in the rhetoric of those who use expressions accepted in the parochial canon. You will agree that if you analyze the biblical accounts with an open mind, the whole rhetoric of those who are committed to the truth of the biblical events and those who are against, i.e. do not believe or doubt, is built on this kind of argument and arguments. I have already said, here it is written this and that. And here it says this and that, and from this follows this and that. Is it funny? Me too. But to me it is because of the argument, in which the criterion of truth and untruth is not a fact, but someone's presentation of some history. You understand correctly, even if many sources will write about some historical object, for example, about sword escalibur, that it belonged to the person, which according to chronicles exactly existed, – it will not be a fact concerning this weapon, especially in the aspect of modern beliefs, if radiocarbon analysis will show, will prove its manufacturing later than the attributed events. But if around a certain history there will be a lot of various tales, and with a philosophical and instructive bias, and also serve to attract adherents, plus to everything – if with the coincidence of time there will be opponents and refuting, and even alternative histories, in this case, firstly, it will be forgotten and few people will wonder whether it happened at all, and secondly, different combinations of statements will be interpreted in their own way in order to prove their rightness, and in some cases, for example, biblical, their holiness. After all, disputes to prove, as it were, the improvement of a religious doctrine, exactly the type of this doctrine (as disputes can take place within one confession), are conducted with the purpose to prove the best, let me put it this way, the holiness, divinity of one's religion, confession, sect. The disputes about the Immaculate Conception follow the same scenario. Some rely on faith and spirituality, others on logic and realism. For example, realists believe that it is a myth created by Christians to emphasize the importance of Jesus. Incidentally, realists may well be Christians themselves. For example, Protestant theologian Harry Emerson Fosdick put it this way: "Belief in the immaculate birth as an explanation for the identity of a great man is a well-known way in which extraordinary exceptionalism was explained in antiquity." I have already described numerous examples in myths and legends.

Nomor stopped his narration, stopped "marching" along the route he had set, looked thoughtfully at those to whom his speech was dedicated. He summarized:

– Let's have a little smile.

The audience supported his call. After receiving the energy charge, he continued:

– It is quite logical that Christians, wanting to win over the pagan audience, presented them with the virgin conception of Jesus, because such a thing was in the practice of deification. It had happened more than once. This was another rebuke to Jesus, the desire of the Jewish clergy to destroy him and his sect. However, he and his company knew what they were doing. They understood: to win, to assert their power over the souls and minds of people, they needed to consistently and firmly assert their postulates, to attract slaves, those who had nothing to lose, as Vladimir Ilyich said, "nothing but their chains. So that it would have the effect of sacrifice for salvation. That is, they were already oppressed, so the affirmation of their faith gave them an invisible weapon, power, which they were deprived of in the material world… moreover, according to their faith it turned out that after death they would live in some divine kingdom. This infuriated those in power. This consistency, despite oppression and oppressions, led not just to a belief in the Immaculate Conception – to a subconscious doubt that such a thing was impossible. Even people with the logic of empirical thinking began to speculate about the reality of it, even if invested with the thought of a highly developed civilization, which in this way tries to tune mankind to the desired manner and policy of behavior.

Nomor took a heavy breath, sipped some water. Pluto took advantage of the pause.

– What was it really like? Your personal version.

– You may laugh, but I'll tell you, a century to learn…" he smiled and added: "I'll even say, now it's possible, an eternity to learn and…" he smiled again.

His smile infected many experts in the audience, though not all of them. Some, on the contrary, became more serious, even glanced ironically at their colleagues in the program. Nomor, noticing this, explained his opinion:

– In connection with the discovery of the method of traveling between worlds… and the worlds themselves, and the worlds being in different time chronology in relation to the development of human society on our planet… we can check how it was and is there. So I will answer the question: if I believe in miracles, it is only in that scientific conception, which speaks about not yet revealed this phenomenon by the level of science. The other side of this logic is unconditional faith. That is faith without conditions. And without conditions one can believe in anything. Logically, I believe in rationality and reality. And most importantly, as one very wise saint said, God does not perform miracles for the amusement of people. By the way, this is how he revealed himself about the extraction of the gracious fire from an ordinary lighter, with which he lit candles in the Kuvukliya[6 - The Kuvukliya is a small chapel in the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem, containing the Holy Sepulchre.] .

– Oh! – Venus exclaimed, as if this revelation were her own personal tragedy.

Apparently determined to finish her off, Nomor added:

– Very often the Immaculate Conception is used in arguments in terms of proving the contrary. In fact, it played into the hands of Christians to attract like-minded people. Allegedly, the followers of Christ had to speak about his real conception from a man, because a pregnant girl not from her husband, and from whom it is unknown, was a disgrace. But here they omit the fact, and I frankly think they are lying, that conception by the Holy Spirit was a cult and privilege of gods or divine persons. Here I must make a footnote – see the beginning of the lecture. Although I would feel more comfortable saying – stories. It's not like we're listening to all this for an exam.

Smiles appeared on faces, mostly those that were younger.

– As for belief or non-belief, in particular, in this and similar things, I will say this, which, by the way, I always say, or rather, I stipulate in advance, so as not to be accused of offending the feelings of believers, as it is fashionable to say nowadays, – you are as right in your belief as atheists are in their non-belief. Just as, indeed, adherents of another religion are right in their disbelief in what to you is a sacred tenet of your religion. So you may believe this, someone may believe that which is not true, and someone may believe something that we both will not believe, yet to them we will be… there are a lot of words you could put here, from unbeliever to Satanist. In religious interpretation, being born of God, of the Holy Spirit, unmarried, immaculate is, to put it mildly, the sweetest magic for those who perceive reality in terms of scientific interpretation. After all, believers in the divine origin of the world and man in no way deny the creation of the world, the universe, and everything simply by the dictates and wishes of God, and instantly. Although no… in six days.....

Nomor said the last in a muffled voice, as if he were speaking doubtfully to himself. With that, he brought a smile back into the eyes of his listeners.

– That is why I always say: if you believe in your own, if you consider it to be the truth, then be kind enough to accept the belief of others in the unbelief of your "truths". Otherwise, it is first egoism, and at the end of the social progression – tyranny and dictatorship.

The lecturer looked closely at the "applicants", studying their reactions. Apparently, this manner was a professional habit for him and, perhaps, a necessity for the style of presentation.

– Yes, one more thing I would like to say," he continued, finding attention to his speech, "Mary not only conceived and bore a child as a virgin, she died as a virgin.

The women mostly bestowed the professor with a smile that is flirtatious at first but ironic in the end.

– My personal opinion: to believe in one's ideals, including serving the gods of science, is absolutely irrelevant to either material fetishes or personal inclinations. The vicious ones, though, can lead you to tragic consequences. Sin, after all, didn't just originate in human culture. For example, the brilliant Teller, although he figured out the secret code of the Enigma cipher machine, which may have made a crucial contribution to the victory over fascism, was chemically castrated because of an accusation of unconventional sexual orientation. Incidentally, he poisoned himself by eating an apple with cyanide. Once I gave a lecture… – he again looked carefully at the audience, – please forgive me for some digressions, they will give you a better understanding of the meaning of my presentation to you.

He fell silent again, swallowed his saliva, took a closer look at his listeners, and continued:

– I once gave a lecture to the top executives of Google… we organized a seminar as part of the Bilderberg Club meeting… and one of them said to me, "Did Apple really adopt this logo as a tribute to Teller? Their version: Teller ate an apple and protested – and they supported that protest by adopting this logo. I answered him nonchalantly, saying, yes, that's right, although I assume you were referring to the apple, which is metaphorically present in the story of the Garden of Eden, but it turns out you know the answer to your question better than I do. And yet, I will take the responsibility to reveal a secret: it was God who suggested this idea to Apple's designers, and I, as an intermediary, transmitted this message via WhatsApp directly into their brains.

Laughs were heard in the hall.

– To this he culturally snapped at me, -And you, batyushka… then I found out about his Russian roots… and you don't even know that WhatsApp is an opposing clan, because it is Facebook, a company of Meta Platforms Inc[7 - recognized as an extremist organization in Russia] , to be precise. I didn't let him get a topic development from me, I just said, -this is in this world, and in the parallel world WhatsApp has already been bought by Google- and that got an approving applause.

The hall reacted in the same way – with applause, though not long and not loud.

– Let's return to our parallels," continued Ffitnop. – Let me continue about virginity. This fact is not publicized, perhaps because it can be deduced a lot. How to explain all this within the framework of marital relations with Joseph? How do you explain Jesus having brothers? There's that "but" again. Because in the native account… I, speaking in the native account, want to reveal a fact that they want to leave out completely, namely, the Jewish origin of the story of the life and teachings of Christ. We now know the Greek-Roman version. By the way, pay attention to the facts of anti-Semitism, exactly where they arise. Imagine – exactly in Christian countries, in Christian societies, I would define them that way. And that speaks volumes… So what was I going to say? Again, I have slightly deviated from the general line, as Izya Shniperson put it, – the theologian smiled again and again began to search for a response in the hall. – Ahh… yes. Mary, the mother of Jesus…oh, I told you about her lifelong virginity. Well okay, so be it, that's not the most important thing… There are a few heads of Moses as holy relics....

Nomor stopped talking for some reason, looking around at his listeners again.

– By the way, why don't we talk about other religions?

– So what was the most important thing you wanted to say? – came from a stately man of rather aristocratic appearance, with a high forehead, which seemed even larger because of an island of bald spots and slicked-back, thinning hair.

Rutra gave him the codename Uranus – he had a cold and menacing stare. In the world, he was an expert on antiquities in the Guggenheim network of museums.

– Ahh…I was going to say holy relics, or rather, relics of saints.

The minister was silent again, apparently wanting to find out whether he was satisfied with the questioner's answer. Whether he did or not we do not know (Rangit did not include anything on this occasion in his report), but apparently his holiness decided that he was not satisfied. This was clear from his subsequent statement.

– You may think otherwise… or you may not be very pleased to hear what I have to say…" he paused again, looking at Uranus.

– And yet? – Realizing the expectation of his approval, the antiquity specialist asked.

– There is such a relic as the circumcised foreskin of Jesus.

– I know, I'd like to see her," he said mischievously, to everyone's surprise.

– We'll talk about that later," said Nomor, embarrassed. – I would like to exhaust the subject of the birth of the Holy Spirit. This myth – we can call it the myth of the birth of the Holy Spirit – is found not only in popular articles by theologians, but also by serious scholars. And this is understandable – the Immaculate Conception is a miracle, a supernatural intervention, and if one holds to a worldview in which there is no place for God or any of his actions in the world, he will inevitably reject any evidence of such supernatural intervention. He will simply be forced to look for any explanation for the available evidence other than the most direct one – a miracle. Let me try to explain who benefits from this myth.

– And why do you think that your worldview is the right one? – Uranus asked, raising his hand tentatively. – Why do you think that billions of people are wrong? I believe that it is you who are wrong, and you need to be saved.

Ffitnop reacted to such an accusation as a man of his vocation should – calmly. Or rather, he responded in the same manner, ignoring the remarks and simply continuing his narrative:

–Liberal Protestantism played a major role in the development of myth: faced with an increasingly skeptical, materialistic cultural milieu in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, some theologians decided that it was a good idea to begin to accommodate and somehow obscure some of the biblical miracles that drew particular ridicule from unbelievers. For that matter, they caused ridicule in ancient times as well. However, no matter how you look at it, the fact that materialism may have been popular in no way proves it true. The thesis "there can be no miracles, because there can never be any" is just a statement of worldview preference with no evidence behind it. A simple example, the very fact of the possibility of the mission in which we all take part: conversion of human consciousness, sending it by means of the paradox of quantum entanglement, finding a homogeneous environment for oneself, implantation in the brain – is it not a miracle? After all, all these phenomena exist to some extent in the world without any secret program. Think about it, don't we convert our consciousness by expressing our thoughts in speech and in all derivatives – songs, poems, scientific discoveries… even in an ordinary conversation. We can thus send our converted thoughts by writing on paper, by radio waves, even by light signals. What's so surprising about finding a medium that is homogeneous to ourselves? After all, ideas born of thought, expressed by speech, find a home in the brain for which they are a homogeneous medium in terms of unanimity. We hear, we agree, we act. A kind of conversion of your desire to do the action. Your thought has entered someone else's brain and caused that body to do what you intended. The technology created by Master Rutra does the same thing, only on an unconscious level. And worlds, many worlds, the existence of which some people doubt, are in all religious doctrines and in the faith of atheists. To be more exact, atheists do not believe in the existence of God as an intelligent Creator, but believe in another Creator – the general nature of metaphysics, so they believe that in the vast expanses of the universe more than one our world was formed. And if we believe in God and believe in the resurrection of Christ from the dead – an event, undoubtedly, supernatural, – we should not question other miracles not connected with Christ, Christianity and religion in general. This is faith, after all. If you selflessly believe in your miracle, then the rest of us have the same right. Everyone – in his miracle. I will note: atheists – in quantum miracle, cloning, transfer of mind into a new body and in general into a machine, and most importantly – transfer with the help of quantum entanglement to unimaginable distances, inclusion into another living being. Yes, yes, I see your surprised faces, I believe in the technology invented by Mr. Rutra and his team. You can wonder further: for example, in Catholicism, the Virgin Mary is also born immaculate. By the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary is meant the Catholic teaching that the Virgin Mary was born without original sin, that is, she was absolutely sinless. Though it is not clear, in what sin. In fact the original sin first of all concerned disobedience not to eat from a tree of knowledge of good and evil. The question of sex was not mentioned. Though from this also follows the conclusion – childlessness is considered holy. Because Adam and Eve made children after expulsion from paradise. Their sinlessness in paradise consisted, among other things, in the absence of sexual intercourse between them. And what about the first commandment given by God to Adam and Eve – be fruitful and multiply… Here and in similar places there is a typical inconsistency of logical inferences. Because the sin on the issue of sex appeared in the doctrine in later times. Based on utilitarian principles. Sexual contacts became tabooed, regulated purely because of attractiveness in the narcotic sense and problematic in physiological, biological and social sense. Yes, also on the question of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The Orthodox Church does not hold this view… Jesus Christ is the central figure not only in Christianity. The central idea in Christianity is his atoning sacrifice for the sins of men. However, we must recognize: there are virtually no sources of information about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ other than the Gospels. Whether you like it or not, I must go over your memory, for it is likely that many elements of the narrative are familiar to you. So, an informational excursion through the pages of theological literature. Let's talk about such an institutional subject as the body of Christian perceptions and concepts associated with the name of Christ. What do we actually know about it? How do the ministers of cults present it to us? It would be more correct to say – cults. So, versions…

The theology professor began to speak faster in the format of a report, repeated many times, learned by heart:

– According to the Christian Nicene-Tsaregrad Creed, Christ is the Son of God, consubstantial (i.e., of the same nature) with the Father, God incarnate in human flesh. Also, the Nicene-Tsaregrad Creed affirms that Christ died to atone for human sins and then rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and will come a second time to judge the living and the dead. According to the Athanasian Creed, Jesus Christ is the second person (hypostasis) of the Trinity. Other Christian beliefs include the Immaculate Conception of Jesus, the working of miracles, and more. Although the dogma of the Trinity is accepted by most Christian denominations, some groups reject it in whole or in part, deeming it unbiblical. The person of Christ causes a great deal of controversy on both academic and domestic levels. There are debates over the very fact of Jesus' existence, the chronology of his life, his social status and cultural milieu, the ideas he preached and their significance for humanity. Orthodox Judaism does not recognize Jesus as a prophet or Messiah. According to Islam, Jesus is considered to be one of God's important prophets, the bringer of Scripture, and a miracle worker. Jesus is also called the Messiah, but Islam does not teach that he was divine. Islam teaches that Jesus bodily ascended to heaven, without any crucifixion and resurrection, unlike the traditional Christian belief of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Let's analyze the origin and meaning of the name. Jesus is the Greek version of the Hebrew name Yeshua, which consists of the roots of the words "Yahweh", the name of God in the Old Testament, and "Shu'ah" – salvation. Before the church reform of Patriarch Nikon, the name of Jesus was written and pronounced with one letter "i" – Isus. Patriarch Nikon changed the spelling and pronunciation – Iisus – in order to bring them closer to the Greek version. The spelling of the name Jesus with one "i" remained unchanged in Ukrainian, Belarusian, Croatian, Ruthenian, Macedonian, Serbian and Bulgarian. Christ is not a first or last name, as many people think. It is in the traditions of religion, exactly in the tradition of the Jewish religion, there was no Christianity at that time, the designation of his mission, the word is Greek, in Hebrew mashiach – messiah, that is savior. The epithet "anointed one" was used in ancient Israel in relation to kings and priests. Putting kings on the throne and priests to serve in Israel through the solemn anointing with oil. Initially priests were called "anointed", and after the establishment of the monarchy in Israel the word "anointed" began to be used in relation to kings. Accordingly, the Jewish prophets heralded the coming of a king from the line of David, an "anointed one" who, being both priest and king, would fulfill all that Israel expected of the true King of Peace.

At this point the theologian finished reciting the information, and went on to his usual manner of presentation.

– The whole Jesus story, in my personal study, is not just some mundane story or a story that happened all of a sudden, all by itself. No. If you look closely, you can clearly see…great things are seen at a distance…the organizational hitches of preordained chords and the skillful conducting of predictions. Simply put, what we see in this event is a preordained desire to play this play according to an edited script. Sorry, I couldn't make it any simpler. I'll try this. Cause and effect are created by announcing a certain prediction or its interpretation in the necessary sense, and then the accomplished event, which also takes place under the guidance, is adjusted to this prediction. And then, many years afterwards, the event that did not happen at all is attributed as real. That is why there are many disputes, complete denial of this history. That is, disputes between those who do not doubt and those who do. After all, they are not on an empty place. For example, the belief that the Messiah must be born of a virgin is based on the text of the Book of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14), according to which he will be born without the seed of a man. In our time, this topic takes on a completely different, unexpected connotation. After all, it is already possible to realize it scientifically. And now I will say that the Messiah had to come for the people of Israel, that is for the Jews. And they did not accept Christ as the Messiah. They are waiting for their Messiah. And now think – can a lady nowadays get pregnant without a man? There were other prophecies, which events were adapted to them or it was announced that they supposedly happened that way. Speaking of predictions. Nostradamus, for example. If you have read, you should have seen the absence of predictions themselves. I mean, he's there writing some kind of interpretation of his vision. A vision in the sense of a dream. It's a kind of fantasy with a zoological and astronomical bent. We observe the same in biblical predictions, for example, the revelations of John the Theologian, from which they draw conclusions about what is supposed to happen. I will express my vision: this ancient technique of fortune-tellers is still used today, not only by gypsies, but also by stock analysts.

The audience laughed. Nomor smiled back and added a little louder:

– And there is no need to talk about weather forecasts. As you know, the hydrometeorological center is wrong once, but every day.

The audience laughed again.

– And after that… let's take Nostradamus' katrens as an example… his verses are called that… can be interpreted in any way and connected with the event that happened. There is, or rather, there was also such a prediction: the Messiah was to be valued at 30 silver coins to be thrown on the floor of the Temple (Zechariah 11:12-13). The belief that the Messiah would rise from the dead is based on Psalm 15, as well as the closing verses of the Book of Isaiah chapter 53, which describe the Messiah's life after his execution. Accordingly, the New Testament describes the life of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of these prophecies. Most likely, if to search well, it is possible to find fairy tales and myths more ancient, where similar in a plot took place, because myths of similar subjects… I will bring them later… a lot. In general, all these interpretations are rather harmful to faith. For example, many Christian denominations claim that Jesus Christ combines two natures – divine and human, being both God and man. There are also many sects that interpret differently. The basic dogmas of religion are approved at meetings called ecumenical councils. By the way, everything is decided by voting there too. For example, the same question of whether to consider someone a saint or not. Whether to consider Jesus as God or not was also decided by this method. So, a couple more excerpts from the Holy Scriptures: according to Christian belief, the appearance of Jesus is the fulfillment of a long-standing prophecy about the Messiah – the Son of God; Jesus was immaculately born of the Holy Spirit by the Virgin Mary, in the city of Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1), where he came to worship three wise men as the future king of the Jews. After his birth, Jesus was taken by his parents to Egypt (Matthew 2:14). After the death of King Herod, Jesus and his parents returned to Nazareth. A number of alternative explanations for the story of Jesus' birth have been offered at various times. In particular, the prophet Isaiah's prediction that the Messiah should be born of a virgin has been challenged (Jewish interpreters generally argue that Isaiah's prophecy has nothing to do with the future Messiah and speaks of events contemporary to the time of the prophecy; a number of secular Bible scholars agree with this). In the ancient period and later in the anti-Christian polemics the viewpoint of Jesus' birth from an extramarital affair was expressed. Such a hypothesis has a right to be, especially it is not rejected by the Jewish interpretation. Do not forget that at that time, of the Abrahamic religions known to us, there was only the Jewish religion. More specifically, this whole story took place as an event in Jewish civil and religious life. The Romans, who ruled over Judea at that time, had little interest in the internal squabbles of the Jews, much less in religious ones. Naturally, such an assertion is rejected by Christians. The argument about Jesus and his relatives visiting the Temple in Jerusalem, including the description of the twelve-year-old Jesus in the Temple ("sitting in the midst of the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions") (Luke 2:46), is often cited as an argument for the impossibility of such a thing. But here, too, there is a logical sequence of presentation that personally suggests to me that there is a reason for this view. At least, let's say that slander may have taken place. Still, agree, a girl of 14-15 years old, pregnant, she is married to a grown man, who is either a widower or divorced, and what is even worse – divorced, because she agreed to be with him, and then she declares that she is pregnant by God. Naturally, they began to say: she is a harlot, she got pregnant. Harlots were not allowed into the temple. But, do not forget my version, this whole story is not a life incident between ordinary people, but a struggle of influential and rich clans. And the main thing is that the version you know is one version. A lot of things are rewritten, and everything is very approximate. For example, even the very date of birth, i.e. the beginning of our era, cannot be determined precisely. Because the very date of the birth of Jesus Christ is determined very approximately. The earliest is usually called 12 B.C., this date is taken according to harmonious coordination with the legend about the Bethlehem star, on the fact of passage in this year of Halley's comet. There is another date which too is connected by causal connections with the stated events in descriptions of this history. It is IV B.C. – the year of death of Herod the Great. Incidentally, this is the latest date given as the date of Jesus' birth. Immediately after his birth, Jesus was taken away by Mary and Joseph to Egypt. The reason for the flight was the planned murder of babies in Bethlehem by the Jewish king Herod in order to kill among them the future king of the Jews. Here is another negative impact of prophecy and its interpretation on people's lives. Though you have probably already realized – this is the fact of clan struggle. Why did Herod suddenly believe in the statement of, for example, Mary… and who else would say who needed it, and if it was necessary – here again is the fact of clan struggle… that the King of the Jews was born. Here it is necessary to explain, the Messiah, whom the Jews were waiting for, he is the anointed one, because only real kings and priests were anointed, as if they performed the inauguration ceremony. That's why they wanted to kill Jesus. There were no kings after the occupation of Judea by the Romans, but the priests remained. So they drove the wave and the crowd shouting "crucify him, the blood of our children is on him". In Egypt the parents with Jesus did not stay long: they returned to their homeland after Herod's death, when Jesus was still a baby. (Matthew 2:19-21) The ethnic definition of Jesus' identity is also ambiguous. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and afterward lived in Galilee, and there were many different nationalities there. Many conclude that Christ may not have been an ethnic Jew. The fact that the Gospel of Matthew says that Jesus' parents were from Bethlehem of Judea, only after his birth they moved to Nazareth, does not prove his Jewishness. Rather it gives one more reason to doubt it. Maybe someone will consider the following unlikely, but I still think this version has a variant of the possible: I was once told, and a person with a degree in history …

Nomor again "turned on" his trademark pause.

– about the Armenian origin of Jesus. At first, like you, I smiled too, but I did not argue much, because it is a dangerous matter. Still, we cannot know it for sure. Then, scratching my head, I thought – maybe he was partly right. I was a little wrong about the ancient texts. And what I thought was this: why should we consider Jesus to be unquestionably Jewish? Why not a Jew? Understand correctly: in the Holy Scripture there is both a reference to the people of Judaea and a message to the Jews. Agree, they are not the same thing. And why couldn't Jesus have been of another nation? He could have been. He spoke Aramaic. And many peoples of that region spoke and wrote Aramaic. Armenia was a great and large country at that time. By the way, it freed Judea from the Seleucid power. As it is known, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar after the destruction of the first Temple in V century B.C. moved a part of Jews to Armenia. After Tigranes the Great freed the Jews from the yoke of the Seleucids, many Jews began to return to their native lands. The reason for this was to a large extent to allow the Jews to practice the rituals of their historical religion. I will not claim that there are Armenian ancestral ties to Jesus, but I doubt even more about Jewish ones. It is very difficult to find the true picture behind the tinsel of historical composing, embellishment, propaganda, and sometimes outright falsification of events. Let me just say this: Armenia is the first country that adopted Christianity on the state level; Armenians are a biblical nation; the Armenian Diocese of the Jerusalem Patriarchate of the Armenian Apostolic Church is one of the dioceses that is currently participating in the ceremony of carrying the Holy Fire. This ceremony is conducted by the clergymen of the Jerusalem Orthodox Church, the Jerusalem Patriarchate of the Armenian Apostolic Church, as well as the Coptic and Syrian Churches. Let me remind you, and those who are poorly informed – I will explain: the Holy Fire (in Greek and Armenian traditions – the Holy Light) is the fire taken out of the Holy Sepulchre at a special service held annually on Great Saturday on the eve of Orthodox Easter in the Church of the Resurrection of Christ in Jerusalem. Literally, the procedure is called: the Exodus from the Kuvukliya. This fire symbolizes the coming out of the Tomb of the "true Light" (John 1:9), that is, the risen Jesus Christ. I will not go into details of this event, I will return to the general line of the theme. I will only note the fact of Mary's escape from Herod's fury not somewhere, but in Egypt, and the mysterious Susanna among the Myrrh-bearing women who witnessed the resurrection of Christ. In the first case (by escape), it means that there was someone to whom, in the second case Susanna came from Armenia. It is true that only the Armenian version of the Gospel, written in the ancient Armenian language Grabar, testifies to this, but it is one of the oldest, not subjected to editing. One of the most important features of the Armenian version of the Bible is the inclusion of some books that are considered apocryphal in all other traditions. About the nationality of Jesus, if we can say so (for nationality is a purely modern term), neither I nor, perhaps, anyone can say anything for sure. It is one of the elements of the concept of faith. And, let me tell you, with all these nations that are mentioned in the Bible, there is much that is confusing, bordering on both mysterious and ridiculous. Let me explain why. Let's take the Jews and the Hebrews. Some researchers believe that at the time of Christ there were no Jews at all, there were only Jews, and Jews appeared in the Middle Ages for the same reason that Jews were forced to change their names among different peoples, in different epochs. As if the Jews, wishing to avoid the wrath of the Inquisition, began to be called Jews. And the mention of Jews in antiquity is a labor of scribes and interpretation. Simple logic can serve as an argument. Tell me – why should one and the same people be called in different ways? If we were talking about Russians and Englishmen and, mentioning one event, we would talk about these two peoples, participating in it in tandem, and then claim that it is one people – would it be true? Of course not! So why are the Jews and the Hebrews suddenly one and the same, but the Aramaeans are not, although their language was spoken and written at the time. It is strange that this people now does not exist as an ethnos. According to history and the Bible itself – they were quite developed and had great influence in the region. The mere fact that most people wrote and spoke Aramaic speaks volumes. Jesus himself spoke and probably wrote in Aramaic. Now back to my interlocutor in history. Perhaps the ancient scribe wrote something down a little inaccurately. Or perhaps he didn't. Why? Let's take the same Armenians as an example. Armenia, Armenians – this is not an autochthonous definition. It all has rather Latin origin and was left from the historians of Rome and Greece. Because Armenians themselves are called… though, some languages do not have this letter and sound, I hope the system will still correctly transmit the sound… ayi, and the country is called Hayastan. Armenia and Armenians are a derivative of "ara" and "men", meaning people who live near Ararat. By the way, they call Ararat Masis. And here in this key the Aramaeans already become more mysterious. First of all, they disappeared somewhere. Secondly, perhaps the same "ara" and "mei". My interlocutor referred to a certain secret book created by the ancient Armenian script. Allegedly, this writing preceded the Armenian alphabet adopted in 405. He, being a colleague of mine, claims that Mesrop Mashtots, the inventor of the Armenian alphabet, did not reinvent the Armenian alphabet, but used the ancient Armenian scripts that have not been preserved by now. It is really strange not to have a written language for at least a couple thousand years. Otherwise, how do we know about this people under other names from different sources, including their sacred texts of the Torah, long before the Behistun inscription of Darius I. Looking ahead, I will say: the version of biblical and evangelical stories are present in one interpretation or another among the peoples of the whole Middle East region. And, of course, they come from deep antiquity. In texts from the country of Ebla (in northern Syria), between 2300-2200 BC, the neighboring state of Armanum/Armani is mentioned. Many scholars believe that this is the first surviving written mention of Armenia. By the way, Syrians still call Armenians by the word "Armani". You will rightly wonder why I went into such details. I assure you that in the program in which you are to participate, ancient written testimonies will play a very important role. The book to which my interlocutor referred has been copied many times from ancient sources. Naturally, it describes events in the original account of ancient eyewitnesses, without cosmetic censorship for ideological reasons. It is no secret that we live in a world of propaganda, which has brought us the history as it was presented by those who wanted to show it to us in this way. Otherwise there would be no apocryphal gospels. And they do exist in the Vatican's hiding places. The very book to which my theological colleague referred is handed down in secret, from hand to hand. Naturally, it is not recognized by the official church. Not only that, it is wanted for the purpose of destruction. Therefore, in our hands, although ancient, but not the original. He didn't tell me where the original is kept. I can tell you for a fact, I didn't find it in the Vatican vaults. Yes, I have access to it. I confess, I myself give permission to familiarize with the documents stored there. I did not find the book in Armenia itself, in the Matenadaran, the repository of ancient manuscripts. The book interests me not from this position – to find out the nationality of Jesus. The voluminous book tells about many events of the epoch before the crucifixion of Christ. After all, you will not claim that all, for example, Jews and Islamic Ummah are wrong, telling a different story about Jesus. They got it from somewhere. The book has a very strange title. Unless, of course, one considers the title of Tacitus' Annals to be strange. By the way, the original title is Ab excessu divi Augusti, which translates to "From the death of the divine Augustus." And, since I mentioned it, I will note: Book XV contains a description of the executions of Christians under Nero – one of the first independent testimonies about Christ and the existence of the Christian community in Rome. The word "annals" has this meaning: a record of events in chronological order. Synonyms: chronicles, annals. So, the book my interlocutor was talking about is called "Dommar". When I asked him what this word means, he found it difficult to answer, referring to the fact that it is a very ancient word and is used nowadays only in one of the seven Armenian dialects. As a result, he translated this word to me as a concept meaning "original, primary, basis, most important, origin, root of the genus, as well as – veins, vessels". Right, I was surprised by such a diverse interpretation… However, let us return to our general line. The main argument of the adherents of the Jewish origin of Jesus is the fact that the entrance to the Jerusalem temple beyond the fence of the balustrade was forbidden to non-Jews on pain of death. This argument is considered to be almost the main one in defining Jesus as a Jew, because on the walls of the temple there was a categorical inscription: "No non-Jew dares to enter beyond the bars and fence of the sanctuary; whoever is seized will be guilty of his own death. But if we remember that before the Romans the Seleucids, i.e. the Greeks, trying to change the religion of the Jews, desecrated the temples in every possible way, not that they did not let "non-Jews" in, had intercourse on the altar, cut pigs in the temple, then perhaps the Romans, for the sake of democracy, allowed everyone to enter the temple.

The theologian threw back his head, twisted his neck, stretched it a little, apologized, and continued:

– Let's move on to the next step. According to the customs and religious canons of society – on the eighth day of His birth He was circumcised and given the name Jesus. There are inconsistencies in the dates, of course. This is what few people think about. Although, by all accounts, Jesus was born in the spring, Christians as the ruling faction decided to overshadow the old holidays with their own. This is me talking about the circumcision of Christ. In Catholicism the date of this event was January 1 on the Gregorian calendar, in Orthodoxy – January 14. Have you ever wondered why we have such a date for New Year's Eve? This is what it is tied to. And in fact this date, which was another holiday, was renamed according to the symbol of the event. I will not go deeper, I'm sure many people know about different dates, which were taken as the starting point of the New Year. And now it is not the same everywhere. In Russia, before the decree of Peter the Great, the beginning of the New Year was September 1. And in general, according to the logic inherent in human nature, at least that which was inculcated by many thousands of years of experience in the upper hemisphere of the planet, the New Year as a process of nature transformation began in spring, somewhere in March. And already in the subsequent understanding of the process changed, became, let's say, closer to human biology. Count: if you conceive a child in March, when will it be born? So it became the time of birth of the hero the location of the planet in the orbit of the Sun ts a in December-January. That's what was celebrated in Rome in the spring. In the whole Roman Empire. Of course, all this came from natural astronomical settings. For example, the day of the solstice or the equinox. Then to such dates began to tie to some important events, for example, in the Roman Empire meeting of consuls. But somehow it was not possible to gather in spring. It was either war or bad weather. We gathered later. And that's how New Year's Eve went on January 1. And then they adapted the circumcision of Christ to it. Well, the difference in days is known as the accumulated inaccuracy between the Gregorian and Julian calendars. Although, as I mentioned, the Orthodox are not ruled by the exact sciences. They follow their own rules. And not to say that they are wrong. They also have every right to ask: why the Gregorian calendar was not adjusted to astronomical time? Everyone has the right to ask, – as a statement the theologian delivered his thought to the audience, for some reason shook his finger in the air and said: – And we will go further. The Gospels do not tell about the further events of Christ's life, up to his baptism as an adult, except for the episode given in the Gospel of Luke (2:41-52), where the evangelist tells about the visit of the Holy Family with the 12-year-old Jesus to the Temple in Jerusalem.

After a pause of three ritualistic twitches of his beard, as if imitating the fairy-tale wizard Hottabych, the professor said:

–Now let's move on to baptism," he said in his refined voice. – According to the Gospel account, at the age of about 30 (Luke 3:23), Jesus entered the public ministry, which he began by being baptized by John the Baptist at the Jordan River. When Jesus came to John, who had preached much about the imminent coming of the Messiah, the astonished John said: "I need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?" To this Jesus replied that "we must fulfill all righteousness," and was baptized by John. At the baptism, "heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in bodily form like a dove, and there was a voice from heaven saying, 'You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.'" (Luke 3:21-22) I'm not going to argue here. Remember, I talked about many arguments about different interpretations of the meaning, inconsistency of logical meaning, about contradictions of different places of writing? And depending on the interpretation, the same place in the scripture – a verse, a chapter or a sentence – is explained in different ways. Look, or rather, pay attention to the above quoted… The Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form… In bodily form?! And a voice from heaven was heard. From heaven! Let's not argue why and how in bodily form. But the conclusion is inevitable. It turns out that at this moment the spirit of heaven entered him, and not earlier. After his baptism, Jesus withdrew to the desert to prepare himself in solitude, prayer and fasting for the fulfillment of the mission with which he came to earth. From this we can conclude, and not just so the rite in the church is still called "the sacrament of baptism", that it was a kind of initiation into a secret clan. As if an unspoken record – "he is his own". And he, of course, had to agree to be a supporter of radical ideas. Otherwise, what's the point of secrecy? You have to be in the clan of those who are against the government. Only by accepting this ritual one became one's own. Like members of secret societies or in a clan of thieves: to enter the clan, an adept must commit a crime or something for which he would be persecuted by the authorities. The next thing is preaching. Jesus, as we know, gave a sermon on repentance in the face of the coming of the kingdom of God. Let's just say that this was the overt, propagandistic part of his oratory. Of course, his call to the people was not just a call to be kinder and repent. It was necessary to justify why it was necessary to be kinder, for what and to whom to repent, because God is in heaven, and the bosses mocked here every day. However, it was in his preaching (there were many preachers at that time, it was a kind of fashion in the Jewish tradition) that he emphasized the meaning of some other God than there was. The oppressed and oppressors, as the ruling and those who are ruled, i.e. the hierarchy of power and castes of society, have always existed; this has always been played upon by those who wanted to change this power. That is, to displace and become power themselves. Of course, the power knew it, and those who came to power in this way tried even more to usurp it, to take into account the ways by which they came to power. There are plenty of examples, one can remember the French Revolution with the subsequent rebuilding of the city so that the squares were wide so that barricades would not be built, one can also remember Japan, where a clan of ninja once came to power, and after the leader completely banned the militant sect, and there is no need to talk about the terror and restriction of the freedom of expression by the Communists. For example, Lenin, the brother of a criminal who attempted to assassinate the tsar, could study at university. And in the system of power he founded, the whole family and even fellow villagers would have been banished to the penal colony, if not shot. Under Stalin, certainly. Although there are different opinions on this. If we take into account the fact that revolution weakens the state, then there are plenty of examples of this. The same Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jewish people were subjected to a terrible genocide. Then. I'm not talking about the holocaust. By the way, if you will be shown historical monuments on a tour of Jerusalem, ask about the year of construction. Otherwise, how did the warlord S?vres completely destroy Jerusalem, and plow up the area. Now, Jesus knew what he was getting into, but look at his geography. Despite the fact that the center of Christ's preaching was the holy city of Jerusalem, the longest with his sermon traveled through Galilee, where Jesus was received more joyfully. It is understandable, because it was his native land. Jesus also traveled through Samaria, Decimated City, and visited Tyre and Sidon. Now remember serfdom. I am not talking about earlier times, especially in the East. Even at the beginning of Soviet power in the USSR not everyone had a passport. Actually, they were introduced then, but you could not go where you wanted to go, especially if you lived in the countryside. Peasants, although they were no longer serfs, and even though they were declared to be owners of not only their land, but of the entire state, according to the promises of the Soviet authorities, they were tied to their collective farm. Their passports were kept with the chairman. You could leave only with his permission. And now imagine: someone in the occupied territory, where everyone is suspected of rebellion, goes wherever he wants, over long distances, and even agitates people, talking about the allegedly impending arrival or the need to change the government to escape the oppression of the invaders. Could mere mortals feel so at ease, do you think? But let's not be pathetic. Let's think about the real life of that society. After all, you must agree, whoever Jesus was, whoever he was in our view, in our faith – he was killed as a man. What do you say to me? I think, either Jesus had some power, or he was favored, and the power itself, or the story is embellished in the process of numerous historical edits, or the author's imagination found it most attractive to make such a picture of Jesus' life, without thinking about the real state of affairs, or … perhaps we do not know something. That's what our mission is organized to do. Though in fact we want to prevent a tragic event for our civilization. Agree: to give birth, to force your creation to follow the doctrine, and then to realize the apocalypse – well, at least not divine, both in the sense of reasonable logic and love, as God positions himself. Well, or he is so positioned to us, his representatives, including me.

Having said the last, the cultist studied the listeners with a beaming smile on his face.

– Therefore, a doctrine that contains the message that in the end a grandiose tragic event for all mankind must happen is questionable as to its veracity. Or… the prediction of this apocalypse, or, as they say in the common people, the end of the world, was inserted there… or rather, it was inserted by those who, holding in their hands the "reins" of controlling human souls, are trying to realize it with ц spruce of universal terror. Or maybe it is even cooler. Imagine how this prediction is understood by artificial intelligence. If it finds it acceptable, justified by its creator, it will try to realize it while creating the conditions under which it is supposed to happen.

The theologian, to allow time to savor what he had heard, holding his hands behind his back, walked around the pulpit and returned to his seat.

– Let's go one step further. One more excerpt from the Gospel, the details of which indicate the scope of Jesus' organizational activities and show another angle of the lone preacher. I apologize, I'm being a little ironic with the word "lonely." Look: many followers gathered around Christ, from whom he first chose 12 of his closest disciples – apostles (Lk. 6:13-16), then 70 more (Lk. 10:1-17), already less close, who are also called apostles, some of them, however, soon departed from Christ (Jn. 6:66). Apostle Paul reports that at the time of Christ's death on the cross and resurrection He had more than 500 followers (1 Corinthians 15:6). And according to some researchers' estimates, it took at least 2 thousand people to capture and hold the Jerusalem temple. It is kind of necessary to clarify what the Jerusalem temple was then. According to Jewish sources, trade was never conducted in the temple itself. According to Christian sources, trade was conducted there. What does that mean? Trade was conducted on the principle of a fair, but not in the temple itself, but on the territories nearby. The then Consumer Protection Agency in the person of the high priest gave permission for this. The reason is not difficult to understand: all the income from the rent of the place went to God's work, as he called it. That is, to him and… you know, nothing is new under the moon. Accordingly, there were premises on that territory, though temporary, or maybe rented, in which, for example, goods were stored. Since the fair was not held in one day. The essence of Christ's actions: to use this desecration of God's house and to show the discontent of the people at the same time. It is roughly like the Bolsheviks seized banks and factories. People need money for revolution. Let's remember Kamo and Joseph Vissarionovich. About desecration of the house of God, to which Jesus appealed, the question is in the same concept – God is God's and Caesar is Caesar's. Caesar was the ruler of the empire of Rome. And when Jesus was asked if he could pay tribute to Rome, he answered in this style. And there you can understand as you want. That is, as if the temple – the place of God, should live on donations, as, say, a party on membership fees. But even then and in the modern world everything is leveled when the power begins to burn palms. The official evangelical historiography tells us the following: Jesus' teachings were supported by various miracles, he was glorified as a prophet and healer of incurable diseases. He raised the dead, tamed a storm, turned water into wine, fed 5,000 people with five loaves of bread, and much more. Remember what I said about coming to power and then banning the methods by which one came to power. What's my point? About miracles. Remember what I said about the warning about miracles by the Second Coming. How any messiah can be turned into a false messiah… That is, miracles are only licensed by the power. Power over the souls of men. From the Gospel of John we learn: Jesus was in Jerusalem four times for the annual Passover celebration. Hence we conclude that Christ's public ministry lasted approximately three and a half years. True, it is not known exactly whether he went there every year in succession. The events of the last days of Jesus Christ's earthly life, which brought him physical and spiritual suffering, are referred to the Passion (suffering) of Christ. The Church remembers them in the last days before Easter, during Holy Week. A special place among the Passion of Christ is occupied by the events that took place after the Last Supper: arrest, trial, scourging and execution. The Crucifixion is the climax of the Passion of Christ.

The customary survey of the audience followed, exhaling, announcing the next topic:

– So, next is the judgment. The Jewish chief priests, having condemned Jesus Christ to death at the Sanhedrin, could not carry out the sentence themselves without the approval of the Roman governor. According to some scholars, the Sanhedrin recognized Jesus as a false prophet based on the words of Deuteronomy: "…but the prophet who dares to speak in my name what I have not commanded him to speak, and who speaks in the name of other gods, such a prophet you shall put to death" (Deuteronomy 18:20-22). Here, too, in this part of the scripture, the same insurance against the encroachment of authority is played out. The options are provided in advance to refute and, if necessary, to defame, as we see, even to kill anyone who would encroach on the established clan of power. After unsuccessful attempts by the chief priests to accuse Jesus of formally violating Jewish law, Jesus was handed over to the Roman procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate (26-36). At the trial, the procurator asked: "Are you the King of the Jews?" This question was due to the fact that claiming authority as King of the Jews, according to Roman law, was considered a dangerous offense against the Roman Empire. The answer to this question was Christ's words, "You say that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I came into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth" (John 18:29-38). Pilate, finding no guilt in Jesus, was inclined to let him go and said to the chief priests, "I find no guilt in this man" (Luke 23:4). Pontius Pilate's decision caused an uproar among the Jewish crowd, directed by the elders and chief priests. In an effort to prevent a riot, Pilate addressed the crowd with a proposal to release Christ, following the long-standing custom of releasing one of the criminals at Passover. But the crowd shouted: "Let him be crucified" (Matthew 27:22). As a final attempt to spare Jesus from death, Pilate had him beaten in front of the crowd, hoping that the discontented would be satisfied with the sight of a bloody condemned man. But the Jews declared that Jesus must die, because he had made himself the Son of God. Pilate, when he heard this word, was more afraid. Pilate went into the Praetorium again and said to Jesus, "Where are you from? But Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate said to Him, "Do you not answer me? Do you not know that I have the power to crucify You and the power to release You? Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over me, unless it had been given to you from above; therefore it is more sinful for him who delivered me to you. From that time Pilate sought to release Him. But the Jews cried out, "If you let Him go, you are no friend of Caesar; anyone who makes himself king is an adversary of Caesar" (John 19:7-12). I would like to focus your attention on the phrase, "…therefore it is more sinful on him who delivered me to you." Does this phrase seem ambiguous to you? It clearly carries the connotation of blasphemy, complaint, and offense. The phrase is preceded by the definition, "You would have no authority over me if it had not been given to you from above. That is, here he speaks of God's authority. For he was clearly not speaking of Pilate's superiors, much less of those who betrayed him in fact, if such was the case. Believe me, it is debatable. What we learn next: fearing the people (the Gospel account says so, though he feared more denunciation to Rome from the religious oligarchs), Pilate passed the death sentence – sentenced Jesus to crucifixion, and he himself "washed his hands before the people, and said, I am innocent of the blood of this Righteous One" (clearly he would not use the phrase "this Righteous One," but we'll keep quiet and move on). To which the people exclaimed: "His blood is upon us and upon our children" (Matthew 27:24-25). According to the sentence of Pontius Pilate – Jesus was crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem on Mount Golgotha, where he, according to the Gospel story, carried his cross himself. Two robbers were crucified with him. In spite of his death pains, Christ uttered several phrases on the cross. Let me draw your attention to some of them. For example, to His mother He said: "Woman, behold, your son" (John 19:26); to His disciple: "Behold, your mother!" (Jn. 19:27); most interesting, perhaps, in terms of mystery: "It is accomplished!" (Jn. 19:30) Mysterious and interesting – before his death. Because afterward he, according to the scripture… And let me quote the original a little bit here.

The narrator scratched his forehead, lowered his head a little, following his own ritual, looked around the listeners, as if studying their thoughts, clarified:

– Okay, one of the translation and presentation options. Although the variants don't differ much from each other at this point. Let's hear it.

… At the cross of Jesus stood His mother and His mother's sister, Mary Cleopas, and Mary Magdalene.

When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple standing there, whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Jono, behold, your son.

Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother! And from that time this disciple took Her to himself.....

Nomor "turned on" the pause again. The audience had already reflexively tuned in to the accent in the story.

– Pay attention to this place. Don't you think it's a little strange?

The hall was silent and waited for the professor's opinion. Apparently, he intuitively understood it already.

…Then Jesus, knowing that all things were already accomplished, let the Scripture be fulfilled, said, I thirst.

There was a vessel full of vinegar. The soldiers put a sponge full of vinegar on the hyssop and brought it to his mouth.

– And that too, doesn't that seem odd?

… When Jesus had tasted the vinegar, he said, "It is finished! And he bowed his head and gave up the spirit.....

– And this is the place I would like you to pay special attention to. For now.

…But since it was then Friday, the Jews, lest they should leave their bodies on the cross on the Sabbath, – for that Sabbath was a great day, – asked Pilate to break their shins and take them off.

So the soldiers came, and they broke the shins of the first, and of the other who was crucified with him… But when they came to Jesus, as they saw him already dead, they did not break his shins....

– Here is a very important point: "…but one of the soldiers pierced His ribs with a spear, and immediately blood and water flowed out. Further, "…After this Joseph of Arimathea, a disciple of Jesus, but secret for fear from the Jews, asked Pilate to remove the body of Jesus; and Pilate allowed it. He went and removed the body of Jesus." In another version: "Meanwhile, a new petitioner appeared before Pilate, who wanted permission to take down the body of Jesus from the cross and give it up for burial. That was Joseph of Arimathea." Arimathea, Joseph's fatherland, comes from the name of the small town of Ramah mentioned by the evangelist Matthew. Joseph is described as a wealthy man of "…high character and blameless life." His great wealth made him a person of great importance, especially since at that time in Jerusalem everything could be bought with money, from the position of the last tax collector to the office of high priest. In addition, Joseph was one of the most prominent members of the Sanhedrin, and together with other well-meaning counselors, probably constituted an opposition to the party of Caiaphas. He was a secret disciple of Jesus Christ and did not participate in the last attempts of the Sanhedrin against the Savior, as well as in the trial of Christ. Nicodemus also came, – who came before to Jesus by night, – and brought a composition of smyrna and aloes, a liter about a hundred. At the moment of Jesus' death, the sun went dark, the veil that separated the holy of holies from the rest of the temple in Jerusalem was torn, there was an earthquake and the resurrection of many deceased saints (Matthew 27:51-53). After Jesus' death on the cross, with Pilate's permission, the body was taken by Joseph of Arimathea for burial, which he performed with Nicodemus in a previously unused tomb that had been cut into a rock on land owned by Joseph, near the garden close to Golgotha. According to Christian legend, after his burial, Jesus descended into hell and, after crushing its gates, brought his gospel message to the underworld, freed the souls imprisoned there, and brought all the Old Testament righteous, including Adam and Eve, out of hell. Notice this place. Does it seem to you that some secret thought is hidden here? Perhaps it has come to us after editing. Doesn't this place, the event described, speak of dissatisfaction with the decision made earlier? I would say more than that. After all, the decision to imprison sinners in hell was made as if by God himself. Get the idea? Now project this into reality. Imagine if an opposition party or an opposition leader called for the release of political convicts from prison. Get the idea?

– Ess, sir," Venus reported as everyone nodded, showing her status from "recruit to conspirator".

The theologian took it rather coldly.

– A few words about the Resurrection," he said without changing his tone. – The Resurrection of Christ is the most honored event in Christianity, the most important holiday. It is marked by Easter. The moment of finding the empty tomb of Christ is described differently in different Gospels. According to one version, Mary Magdalene alone – and according to others – with the mother of Jesus or not only the two of them – came after the Sabbath to the Tomb of Christ and saw that it was empty. Two angels and Jesus himself appeared to her, whom she did not immediately recognize. Isn't that strange? Isn't it? But we have agreed not to deviate too much from the central line of the study. Let's see what happened next. In the evening Christ miraculously appeared to His disciples, among whom Thomas the Twin was not present. This was the sixth appearance. There were ten in all. So those who believe in the Second Coming are not waiting for the second coming, but for the eleventh coming. This is the paradox. Most likely the disciples, followers of Christ, gathered to their meetings. As well as many religious groups and sects nowadays. It is strange that Jesus came to the meeting with his disciples, who, by the way, should have believed in his resurrection. So, it turns out that they did not believe in his preaching either. At least not in all of it. Thomas, as we know already from tradition, was the most unbelieving. He did not believe in the stories of his companions about the resurrection of Christ, saying: "unless I see on His hands the wounds of the nails, and put my finger into the wounds of the nails, and put my hand into His ribs, I will not believe" (John 20:25). There is some strangeness here, too, about "putting the finger in." The ignorance of human anatomy, or at least of warm-blooded organisms, is clearly observed by the authors of the statement. The wound should have healed, healed, at least such holes would not have formed. But that's okay too… What's next? – asked the professor.

From the manner of the dialog it appeared that he asked himself.

– And then it would be good to move on to the process itself," Jupiter said.