Artur Zadikyan
Jesus and Christ
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 Inc7 , 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.
