Is Jesus Azizus Monobaz?

[Sanyam Deshi]

Your evidence is just referring to the parallels in your precious book that might not even be real, and some links to people who agree with you. Without even reading your links, I cannot deny that their are parallels between the story of Azizus and the Bible.

You haven't read the book. How do you know?

I don't think Ren would be trying to put such a blindfold over everyone if he wasn't confident that there was a parallel between the two works. If I actually cared to look into it, I'd probably find the same parallels myself. Heck, I'd probably come to the same conclusions Ren came to... but what's the point of coming to a conclusion about a historical work if you are unsure of the validity to that work? The whole point of my argument, which I have been trying to get across to you two for weeks now, is that despite the fact that these parallels exist, there may be little integrity or validity to the work that Ren is referring to.

Ren's entire "factual claim" is based on the assumption that the documentation of Azizus is a 100% factual piece of source material that undoubtedly relays the events in a direct and valid manner. That's an extremely biased stance to take. Wouldn't you say that it takes away from the entire idea of an intelligible debate?

 

[Harte]

Harte, so somehow, you read Ralph as saying that "Jesus was always described as a glutton" (by his critics in the Bible story) as Ralph is calling Jesus a glutton.

Ralph is saying that his critics called Jesus a drunk and a glutton. Ralph is not saying that Jesus is a drunk and a glutton.

You can read what Ellis wrote in the pic I uploaded, if you can't be bothered to check the ebook.

Should I quote Ellis again? Like I said, I can read. I can see what Ellis said - that jesus was "always described in the New Testament as being a glutton and a drunkard."

Where did I state that Ellis was calling Jesus anything?
Eliis utterly mischaraterized how Jesus was described, then cited a passage, a single passage, that in no way supports his claim.

IOW, he lied about how Jesus was characterized. He lied in two ways.
1) He lied when he used the term "always" where not a single person other than Jesus himself (and only in that one passage, and only in sarcasm) ever described Jesus that way.
2) He lied by citing the passage, full well knowing that the passage indicates no such characterization of Jesus at all, other than Jesus' own sarcastic comments on how the Pharisees and Lawyers invented faults for both He and John the Baptist.

You give me the wrong page number and when you do give me the page number you are quoting, the quote does not mean what you think it does.

I gave you the correct title AND page number, Ren. I simply linked to the wrong url, connecting you with the Book of Luke by accident:

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.

Debating with you is madness. But it is a bit fun if not cruel. Like throwing peanuts at a monkey in a cage. Eventually it won't be fun because I know you will eventually throw your feces back at me.

I see that, having no other position except "That's not what he meant!!!" you decide to act juvenile and attack me personally.

Hey Num, I thought this sort of thing was fvrowned on around here.

Perhaps, once you muster up the mental faculties that could possibly allow you, after an hour or two of study, the ability to discern the difference between the number 291 and the number 398 (as a Math teacher, I can help you there, but it will take much longer with the rest of the numbers and these two suffice to make my point,) you can begin to make your way into the halls of civil discourse. Until then, I'm afraid you're stuck on the playground, hooting your inane "ideas" from the monkey bars.

Harte

 

[titorite]

But Ren, you've confessed to being a pathological liar multiple times on multiple threads.

Never judge a person by what they say. Judge a person by what they do.

But Ren, online what you say IS what you do online. And because of your past confessions and continued attempts to make yourself and your stories out to much more than what really is .... How can anything you further present be considered Honest and Accurate information? From your bibliography through Azizus through your other continued fantastic claims, When everything you say is a self confessed lie how do you expect anyone to take anything you have to say has legitimate? How can you claim libel when you're self confessed?

 

[Harte]

Go on, ask him again about the etymology of the word "Christ (Kristos) and the name Christopher.

Maybe he'll give the right answer this time.

After all, we can't blame Ren for the lies of Ellis. We can blame him for his own.

Harte

 

[PaulaJedi]

@Ren

You are an intelligent, valuable person and I enjoy learning from you. I hope you come back soon.

 

[AAA]

Is Jesus Azizus Monobaz?

Without examining the information Ren has presented, I cannot speak to Azizus Monobaz. However, what The Bible reads is sufficient to suggest that Jesus was not as many believe.

Before I begin, I would like to say that, generally speaking, I rather like Christians. As a whole, I think they are mostly good people with honorable intentions. I also rather admire the historical figure commonly known as Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and consider him worthy of praise. I want to be clear that what I present is not intended to be offensive. I consider it an analytical and intellectually honest academic Bible study in the interest of truth.

Christianity is largely dependent upon the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the literal Son of God (the origin/creator of all things), that God impregnated a virgin named Mary with itself as to live on Earth in the form of a mortal holy man named Jesus. The basis for such reasoning is largely based upon the relationship between the 1st chapter of The Gospel Of Matthew and The 7th Chapter of Isaiah, citing Jesus's virgin birth as prophecized in Isaiah 7:14.

Upon further examination, taking a more in-depth approach, it is apparent that Jesus and Immanuel are two entirely different people, from different times under differing circumstances, and that modern mainstream Christian Fundamentalism has missed something that can only be discovered through such careful examination. This 'study' is concerning the relationship between the The first chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, and Isaiah chapter 7, verse 14 in particular.

Because I think it is important to be as accurate as possible, drawing from the most original sources available, because Greek and Hebrew do not always properly transliterate well into English, I will not only be posting in English, but also Greek from Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550, as well as Hebrew from the Masoretic Text. I also recommend utilizing the included Strong's word reference as needed.

Here are my resources:
Matthew 1 KJV
Matthew 1:1 Greek Text Analysis
Isaiah 7:1 Hebrew Text Analysis
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1007.htm

I will start with The Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 1. The chapter starts by explaining the bloodline of Joseph from Abraham, and continues to the 16th verse where it gets to Joseph, Mary, and Jesus

Matthew 1:1 - Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ Δαβίδ, υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ
[the] book of [the] genealogy of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham...

Matthew 1:16 - Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός
...And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

(Matthew 1:18 is where it gets complicated, as it explains that Mary was already pregnant when she married Joseph)

Matthew 1:18 - Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γέννησις οὕτως ἠν· μνηστευθείσης γὰρ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ, πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτούς, εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου
Now of Jesus Christ the birth thus came about. Having been betrothed the mother of him Mary to Joseph, before rather coming together of them, she was found in womb holding through the Spirit Holy.

(Verse 19 is particularly interesting as it gives insight into Joseph's position. Put yourself in his shoes; You are a man who is from a long line of royalty, and you have just married a sweet beautiful teenage girl who is a 'virgin' and eager to consummate your marriage and create a family. ..you then discover she is already pregnant. Imagine the disappointment. Joseph was a good man, of course, and cared for her very much, but is having a very difficult time accepting this. He doesn't want to publicly shame her, nor does he want to endure the embarrassment. So, he considers sending her somewhere else, either as subtle and tasteful rejection, and/or to have the baby in secret elsewhere as to save face.)

1:19 - Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς δίκαιος ὢν καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν παραδειγματίσαι, ἐβουλήθη λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν
Joseph moreover, the husband of her, righteous being, and not willing her to expose publicly, purposed secretly to send away her.

( In verses 20 and 21, Joseph is stressing this situation and trying to figure out the best, most honorable, way of handling it. He, understandably, wants to reject her. Then he has a profound dream whereby he is visited by an angel and reassured that the child already in the womb of his lovely teenage bride is, in fact, a holy child of God who will one day do great things, ...and it is recommended that he should accept her as his wife anyway.)

1:20 - ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδού, ἄγγελος κυρίου κατ' ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων, Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαβίδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαριὰμ τὴν γυναῖκά σου· τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου
These things moreover of him having pondered, behold, an angel of the lord in a dream appeared to him, saying, Joseph, son of David, not fear to receive Mary as the wife of you; that indeed in her having been conceived, from the spirit is Holy.

1:21 - τέξεται δὲ υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν· αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν
She will bear a son, and you will call the name of him Jesus; he indeed will save the people of him from the sins of them.

(Verses 22 and 23 are the key to it, as it cites the relationship between Immanuel and Jesus in quoting Isaiah 7:14.)

1:22 - Τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος,
This moreover all has come to pass, that might be fulfilled that having been spoken by the Lord through the prophet [Isaiah] saying;

1:23 - Ἰδού, ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον, Μεθ' ἡμῶν ὁ θεός
Behold, the virgin in the womb will hold, and will bear a son, and they will call the name of him Immanuel, which is translated; with us God.

It is important to carefully dissect and understand verses 22 and 23. Verse 22 says that this situation is a fulfillment of the prophecy as spoken to Isaiah in chapter 7 verse 14 regarding a 'virgin' birth. Verse 23 quotes Isaiah 7:14 and further explains the name Immanuel as to cite the similarity between the meaning of the names Jesus and Immanuel. It is essentially saying that because it is about a 'virgin' giving birth to a son with a similar name meaning, that Isaiah 7:14 is speaking of Jesus. Joseph's dream is the basic premise or origin in which Christianity claims Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God. It all originates from his dream.

Since Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, let us now examine Isaiah 7:14 and compare it to Matthew 1:23...

Isaiah 7:14 -
לכן יתן אדני הוא לכם אות הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן וקראת שמו עמנו אל׃
Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:23 - Ἰδού, ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον, Μεθ' ἡμῶν ὁ θεός
Behold, the virgin in the womb will hold, and will bear a son, and they will call the name of him Immanuel, which is translated; with us God.

Isaiah 7:14 uses the word Alma ( העלמה ) meaning "Young woman", ...and Matthew 1:23 uses the Greek word (parthenos/παρθένος) meaning "Virgin".

There is an important distinction to be made here, as the Hebrew word Alma ( העלמה ) primarily means young woman, but could imply virginity. The Greek word parthenos specifically means virgin, typically a young lady/girl. In Hebrew, if you are to specify a young woman as a virgin, as in having never had intercourse, the word Bethula ( בתולה) is most appropriate.

Now let's examine the name meanings of both Jesus and Immanuel.

Jesus ( Ιησούς - Ιησού ) is Greek, a variant of Joshua ( Ιησούς του Ναυή - Τζόσουα ), which is a transliteration of the Hebrew name Yeshua or Yahshuah ( יהושע ), which means "God's salvation". Ye/Yah means "God", and Shua means "salvation". Immanuel ( עמנואל ) is Hebrew, and, as verse 23 states, means "God is with us". Immanu means "with us", and El is a word meaning "God". Albeit different and separate names and languages, both Jesus and Immanuel have a similar (but still different) meaning in that they both describe carrying the holy spirit of God.

What Matthew 1:23 is essentially implying is that there is no difference between a young woman and a virgin, or the names Immanuel and Jesus. And therefore Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of Jesus.

When further examining and comparing Matthew chapter 1 and Isaiah chapter 7, there are yet more important distinctions to be made in taking into consideration the time line and general context.

Isaiah 7 begins by setting the chapter in the context of the political and military circumstances of kings
Ahaz, Jotham, Uzziah, Aram, Pekah, and Remaliah several hundred years prior to the time in which Jesus lived.

Isaiah 7:1 -
וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אָחָז בֶּן-יוֹתָם בֶּן-עֻזִּיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה, עָלָה רְצִין מֶלֶךְ-אֲרָם וּפֶקַח בֶּן-רְמַלְיָהוּ מֶלֶךְ-יִשְׂרָאֵל יְרוּשָׁלִַם, לַמִּלְחָמָה, עָלֶיהָ; וְלֹא יָכֹל, לְהִלָּחֵם עָלֶיהָ.
And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aram, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to war against it; but could not prevail against it.

If you care to note, these include Joseph's great grandfathers as referenced in Matthew 1:9

Matthew 1:9 - Ὀζίας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωαθάμ· Ἰωαθὰμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀχάζ· Ἀχὰζ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἑζεκίαν
Uzziah moreover begat Jotham; Jotham moreover begat Ahaz; Ahaz moreover begat Hezekiah;

Uzziah reigned from 640 - 690 BC
Jotham reigned from 742 - 735 BC
Ahaz reigned from 744 - 728 BC
Hezekiah reigned from 715 - 686 BC

Jesus Christ of Nazareth lived between approximately 5 BC - 35 AD, which is a minimal of 600+ years after the events and circumstances of Isaiah chapter 7-9.

Immanuel's role was a sign from God to King Ahaz to restore his faith, to act as a redeemer for the House of David. The first 9 verses describes the political/military circumstances. Verses 10 - 16 speak of Immanuel in the context of the time of Ahaz's reign in that it was a sign for Ahaz.

7:10 - And the LORD spoke again unto Ahaz, saying:
וַיּוֹסֶף יְהוָה, דַּבֵּר אֶל-אָחָז לֵאמֹר.

7:11 - 'Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.'
שְׁאַל-לְךָ אוֹת, מֵעִם יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ; הַעְמֵק שְׁאָלָה, אוֹ הַגְבֵּהַּ לְמָעְלָה.

7:12 - But Ahaz said: 'I will not ask, neither will I try the LORD.'
וַיֹּאמֶר, אָחָז: לֹא-אֶשְׁאַל וְלֹא-אֲנַסֶּה, אֶת-יְהוָה.

7:13 - And he said: 'Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also?
וַיֹּאמֶר, שִׁמְעוּ-נָא בֵּית דָּוִד: הַמְעַט מִכֶּם הַלְאוֹת אֲנָשִׁים, כִּי תַלְאוּ גַּם אֶת-אֱלֹהָי.

7:14 - Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל.

7:15 - Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
חֶמְאָה וּדְבַשׁ, יֹאכֵל--לְדַעְתּוֹ מָאוֹס בָּרָע, וּבָחוֹר בַּטּוֹב.

7:16 - Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken.
כִּי בְּטֶרֶם יֵדַע הַנַּעַר, מָאֹס בָּרָע--וּבָחֹר בַּטּוֹב: תֵּעָזֵב הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה קָץ, מִפְּנֵי שְׁנֵי מְלָכֶיהָ.


Having taken all of the above into consideration, it begs numerous questions. The basic point is that these are two entirely different circumstances in different contexts, of differing times, with different people, with different names, some from different families, etc. Why and/or how could anyone confuse the two?

Why would an angel of God tell Joseph that Jesus was to fulfill a prophecy that had already been fulfilled hundreds of years prior by someone else?

If the notion of Jesus being a holy literal holy son of God, born from immaculate conception, relies primarily or solely on Joseph's dream and the question of Mary's virginity, and it is clear that there is nothing substantial or of any substance whatsoever to suggest that his dream was in fact in regard to the prophecy of Immanuel/Isaiah 7:14, is there any legitimacy to the very premise, and therefore entirety, of Christianity?

Is it possibly that because Joseph was under such stress, that he somehow rationalized through a manifestation of his subconscious (in a dream) that Jesus was a holy child? Was it a blatant lie as to save face, to avoid ridicule?

How do virgins and young women get pregnant? Is it possible that Mary was not a virgin, that she indeed had sexual intercourse or relations before marrying Joseph? Was it about something else, perhaps an alien abduction and insemination, rape/molestation and/or subsequent feelings of shame or guilt, thus denial?

Is the true line of David through Jesus' brother or other branch[es]? Is there another different messiah to come?

Was Jesus an awesome holy bastard, ...an average mortal man? Does it matter? Why can't we praise him anyway for his contribution to the world in the form of a beautiful message and martyrdom?

 

[Ren]

I'm sure you've all heard something about Ridley Scott's Exodus movie and why Egypt is banning it for historical accuracy. The BBC television network has stated that Exodus is based on the Santorini volcano exodus accounts in the historical record. This is Ralph Ellis' work. Like it or not, Ralph is now mainstream because the BBC considers him the go to scholar on Biblical and Egyptian history.

 

[Sanyam Deshi]

I'm sure you've all heard something about Ridley Scott's Exodus movie and why Egypt is banning it for historical accuracy. The BBC television network has stated that Exodus is based on the Santorini volcano exodus accounts in the historical record. This is Ralph Ellis' work. Like it or not, Ralph is now mainstream because the BBC considers him the go to scholar on Biblical and Egyptian history.

The Movie "Exodus" Banned in Morocco, UAE and Egypt for "Historical Inaccuracies"
Historical inaccuracies. Nonetheless, nobody has given BBC the rights to call the shots as to what's fact and what's fiction. I also did a search on Google: "Ralph Ellis BBC", and the top results were all about the painter. This is not a lot of information about their so-called "go-to" guy.

Your logical deduction is very interesting, as you seem to fabricate your arguments, based on what you would like to be true, and then throw in some references in the hopes that they will somehow meld together. I have also taken note of your clear avoidance of responding to the main thread, which is all so convenient for you. I can only desperately hope that you gain some respect in arguing as well as respect for humanity. I am rooting for you, Ren.

 

[Harte]

The Thera eruption has been conclusively dated to around 1620 BC. This means Ellis is wrong again, if that's his claim.

Harte

 

[Ren]

The dates are approximations, Harte. Nobody knows the exact dates of anything that long ago.

Sanyam, I really have no idea where you are going with this argument. The BBC is not the only agency reporting.

Director James Cameron and narrator Simcha Jacobovici are making Ralph's findings public now.

Ralph's findings on Exodus.

Ralph's findings on Mary Magdalene.