Does the book of Isaiah say anything about Jesus of Nazareth?

[intaglio]

61. I repeat only to be ignored by you again

Element 1
An Apologist is one who issues an apologia, this is called apologetics

An apologia is a defense of something or someone.

Apologetics has come to be commonly associated with defense of religious beliefs but literary apologia also exist.

Jefferson was issuing and apologia, a defense, of his view of Jesus. Thus he was an apologist. The reality of his Deist faith is irrelevant to that fact.

Claiming that Jefferson's faith denied him the ability to issue an apologia is a falsehood.

There you go, I have said clearly that Jefferson was both a deist and an apologist. You will deny my statement because you are deliberately using an inadequate and falsely limited description of apologetics. You're wrong, hard luck.

Element 2
Will you please decide what spelling, Issa or Isa you wish to use. There is a distinct difference in pronunciation if not in transliteration.

If the former you are using a word that doesn't exist but might be a variant of the Arabic usage for Jesus. In this case you are saying that a young man from Judea went to Tibet and used a variant of his name that would not be current for 600 or more years.

If the latter you are saying that someone called "The Lord" spent some time in Tibet learning at the knee of Tibetan masters. There is no evidence that "The Lord" was Jesus. Jesus, would not have been called "The Lord" at that time.The monks would not have found out about his Christian title "The Lord" until several hundred years later and would not have been able to connect that later title to the young man who visited so long before.

Element 3
Notovich, let me begin by ignoring the incongruities in his story and accept that he did get to Hemis. If he did he did not visit the monastery and he did not suffer a broken leg, if the story is true he had a toothache and left after visiting a German doctor. I will accept that the unnamed Russian of this story was Notovich. It does not explain the concurrent denial by the Abbot that the Russian ever visited him.

It matters not, for Notovich published his little bombshell about Issa in 1897 many years after his purported arrival in Hemis. It may have escaped your notice that Blavatski had formalised her nonsense about a Tibetan educated Jesus in 1875. What is more Blavatski was the much loved daughter of a well connected Tsarist family and had been coining money from the gullible for years. I would suggest that these facts might, possibly, be connected.

Element 4
Why do you persist in believing that Abhedananda and Roerich were independent? To do this you need to do the following:
a) Ignore the years Blavaski spent in India;
b) Ignore her association with, and funding of, other "Vedantic" scholars;
c) Ignore the funding the Theosophists provided to Abhedananda;
d) Ignore the leading role Roerich played in the Theosophical movement;
e) Ignore the lack of photographic or other documentary evidence about either visit to the monastery;
f) Ignore Roerich's impossible itinerary.

You and others also accept as gospel the statement by Abhedananda that he was "skeptical" in which case you must accept my statement that I have a hidden certainty that there is a God. As my statement is patently false it is equally possible that Abhedananda's statement may have embroidered the truth, perhaps "added verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing argument,"

Element 5
Hearsay evidence is not evidence. In this modern climate "Photographs (or recordings) or it did not happen". In the case of the later assertions, how many tourists asking "Do you have stories about Jesus in this monastery?" would it take for the monks to catch on and say "Yes, we do have them - but no-one is allowed to see them, they're too sacred, (all donations toward the preservation of this monastery gratefully received)"