I believe everything I read? Obviously I don't believe in the tripe that is the Bible.
The evidence that Azizus is the historical Jesus is very clear. Google 'Abgar Mandylion'. The face of Abgar's son Azizus is that of the 1st century image of Jesus. The Catholic Church claims it is.
Not even true:
The Vatican now concedes (in the words of the official Vatican Splendors exhibit catalog [“Mandylion” 2008]) that “... the Mandylion is no longer enveloped today by any legend of its origin as an image made without the intervention of human hands....”
The Vatican has yet to overtly state that the image is
not Christ, but they do acknowledge that any legends concerning the image (the one they have, there are three that claim to be the "original" and several others that don't make that claim) are fiction.
Can you link to the Church confirming what you have said?
You also claim that you have not researched Azizus. So why are you debating that which you have not researched. You are displaying your gross ignorance here. It is best to remain silent in matters you have not researched. The story of Azizus was written by Josephus in the 1st century. If you had researched this, you would know it wasn't written yesterday. Very few people had a command of the political scene in the court of Herod. But Josephus, the Governor of Galilee certainly did. He was the General of Jotapata when Titus attacked the city.
Yet historians clearly state that the story, as written, is a fanciful rendition of a possible myth going around at the time:
Historian Sir Steven Runciman has denounced all versions of the legend as apocryphal: “It is easy to show that the story of Abgar and Jesus as we now have it are untrue, that the letters contain phrases copied from the gospels and are framed according to the dictates of later theology” (qtd. in Sox 1978, 52).
My emphasis. Source for both quotes:
link.
Christianity is the propaganda and because you are too lazy to research the truth that Josephus invented the entire story with his friends Plutarchus and Titus, you are damned in your ignorance and illiteracy. If you read Josephus, Plutarch, Plato, Homer and Socrates, you will know where the New Testament gets its material from, sometimes word for word.
It appears you put the cart before the horse on this one, since the story itself, by Josephus (supposedly,) lifts entire phrases from the Gospels, not the other way around.
But I would agree with you that much of the Bible - both parts - is propaganda, and I don't believe the large majority of it myself.
In defending the Bible, you have based your life on lies. And you refuse to research the truth.
But you wouldn't know because you refuse to watch a Ralph Ellis video on King Jesus. You are afraid of the truth that Jesus was just a mortal man Azizus. You fear and cower in the darkness.
You are basing your beliefs on some guy's video? It would seem that you have no standing, then, to criticize the research techniques of others.
My preference is to read legitimate materials concerning this matter, and not some guy giving an opinion on it in a video. I can form my own opinion, you see, and I will certainly do so, when (if ever) given info on what materials led Ellis to this conclusion.
A partial preview of one of his books is available on googlebooks:
LINK.
in that preview, I spotted an excerpt concerning the "fullness" of Jesus' facial imagery where Ellis states:
Having said that, Jesus was always described in the New Testament as being a drunkard and a glutton (Luke 7:34) and so perhaps the slightly fuller face seen here is the more realistic image.
Page 398, "Jesus, King of Edessa: The biblical Jesus discovered in the historical record," Ralph Ellis.
The page itself is not viewable (not part of the preview,) but the statements I quote turn up in a search of the text.
Let's look at Luke 7:34 -
The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'
First point, I defy anyone to find anywhere in the NT any other characterization of Jesus as a glutton and drunkard. Yet Ellis clearly states that Jesus was "always described" this way.
Second point - Ellis takes a single line from the NT completely out of context. Let's look at the context:
28"I say to you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."
29When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God's justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John.
30But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.…
31"To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like?
32"They are like children who sit in the market place and call to one another, and they say, 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.'
33"For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, 'He has a demon!'…
34"The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'
35"Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children."
From the above, it is crystal clear that Ellis has purposefully mischaraterized a story told in Luke concerning Luke's version of Jesus' comments about John the Baptist and the extent that unbelievers will go to in order to maintain their (to Him) false worldview.
Ellis: "Jesus was always described in the New Testament as being a drunkard and a glutton"
Jesus (according to Luke): "The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!"
What we actually have is Jesus using an ironic mischaracterization of himself to make a point concerning the hypocrisy of the "Pharisees and the Lawyers."
To put it bluntly, it don't look so good for Ellis. I don't know how you think, but I think that if an author has to mischaracterize (to the brink of lying about) a thing in order to make his point, then the point is almost never worth even taking note of.
This constitutes the entirety of any "research" I'm willing to conduct on this matter, unless I'm
given more to read. I'll not search it out myself, since it appears from the above to just be another fringey woo claim, much like the "Pharoah's Helicopter" or the "Coso Artifact."
I would say that your adherence to this belief is completely congruent to a Christian's adherence to Christianity. Simple blind faith and nothing more. Obviously, you could prove me wrong, but not by linking to some video.
Harte
