Артур Задикян – Jesus and Christ (страница 33)

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.