Jesus and Christ. Artur Zadikyan

      …I see this abbreviated interpretation says little to those who know the Gospel story, and little to those who do not know the Gospel story. So I will spend a more informative time with my story. So: The New Testament. The Gospels. Preliminary information. The word "gospel" means "good news," "pleasant, joyful, good news." It is the name given to the first four books of the New Testament that recount the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. The vast majority of Christians honor him as the son of God. Except that it turns out to be a curious situation. It is as if he is his own father and his own son. Though in ancient religions there were many sons of God. Every little king called himself a son of God. Who had a strong power and could create a succession, respectively, to prolong his personality cult even after his death, was later honored, so to speak, voluntarily and compulsorily as a son of God. I will even go a little ahead and say that Christianity and established itself in the broad masses, because it proclaimed God for the middle and below average strata of the population. Simply put, for laborers and slaves. For understanding I will explain – slaves were not supposed not only to have property, but also to have God, God's patronage. It was a kind of insult to the powerful and rich, because it put the slave on the level of nobility. For the most part, this was the main motive for the persecution of Christ. Before the coming of the Son of God to the earth, people visualized God as an all-powerful Creator, a formidable Judge, and an unapproachable glory. Jesus Christ gave a new concept of God as a close, merciful and loving Father. Here again, however, there are some ambiguities. If Herod's tyranny and Pilate's dictates were in place at that time, how could Christ help the oppressed, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, the sick, and anyone in need? It is understandable if it was help as verbal comfort, but in that case it would not have been difficult for many to speak beautiful and pleasant words. After all, there were a great many itinerant and non-itinerant preachers in those days. In the ancient world it was a kind of political declaration and even a fashion. There was no professional medicine, and science was like something from the realm of fantasy. Therefore, the one who could cure any disease, the more severe, and even if he could apply something scientific, knowledge of astronomy or chemical interaction of metals – this person was automatically endowed with a supernatural, divine aura. I will tell a little about the origin of the Gospel text. Yes, by the way, of course, all this is not my personal interpretation, in some places I will quote different sources, so perhaps I will repeat myself somewhere. After our peculiar lecture, I will drop the files for public access, or rather, they will be written to your internal artificial memory, in disputable situations you will always be able to consider the opinions.

      The scientist paused and continued:

      – 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