Visit our
home page for a quick view of the subject
JESUS AND ABRAHAM
A THRONE
FOR TWO?
By A. E.
Extracts of L’Alpha et
l’ Oméga
Translated by Systran
software
Revised with Microsoft
Word
Last updated: 10-08- 2000
See the original
document
NOTICE:
This is a software-translated document.
Intelligence in question.
The lamentable
failure of Israel and the analysis that we made showed at which point
intellectual faculties, contrary to some generally accepted ideas, were
important for the spiritual salvation of humankind. Unfortunately, the
capacity to understand does not reach the same level among individuals. The
lucky ones need only one simple catch and all is positioned back in their
mind. On the other hand, some people are limited so much that the truth the
most obvious, expressed in the clearest way, will never manage to reach their
consciousness.
Even at this
crucial crossroads of history, one must avoid underestimating the power of the
Beast. By applying ourselves throughout this study to thwart its traps, we
ended up highlighting clearness and coherence of the history of Israel. Afterwards, this step can appear quite
simple. However, for 4000 years, the whole humanity has not succeeded in
pointing out the elementary logic that underlies the history of salvation
(Revelation 5: 15). Indeed, nobody seems to be aware of the fact that the
messianic doctrine was only a reiteration of the promise made to Abraham.
After a so long period of darkness, one must not await that the eyes of this
world will adapt instantaneously to the light. Then, for all those who
still feel lost, let’s summarize once more: God has promised the ancestor
of the Jewish people that he would put him in possession of the world and his
children will be one day as many as stars in the sky. To meet the
objective conditions for the realization of this promise, he started history
itself. At the convenient period, i.e. when
he makes enemies of Abraham a stool for his feet,
he will honor his word while giving to
the latter the domination, the glory and the reign forever.
If one wants to enter the logic developed in Israel a few centuries before
the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, at the end of time, God proposes himself, in
fact, to establish Abraham as the Messiah
The
Christian point of view.
Obviously, this
particular interpretation of history is certainly not the appraisal in the
Christian mediums. Indeed, with time, the historical character of Christianity
tended to fade all the more so since the new religion did not lean anymore
on a national substrate or an official framework. Christian preaching generally
stress the divinity of the person of Christ and his Resurrection that proves it
while the fact of the Promise pass increasingly in background. To locate the
Christian point of view on the question without going into other considerations
of this type, it should be remembered that even the alive ones of Jesus of
Nazareth’s disciples experienced great difficulty to penetrate its teaching.
They have testified through the Gospels how they had to await the
achievement of some events to discover the meaning of some words pronounced by
their Master and of which they had had the memory. Thus, even the closest
disciples to the Galilean Prophet were not always in phase with him. However, after the departure of the Master,
they did all that was in their capacity to reconstitute his thought and to
bequeath the Christian doctrine to the posterity.
Today,
according to official Christianity, the Messiah is Jesus of Nazareth and not
inevitably Abraham. The great majority of those who are recognized as
Christians adheres without reserve to this idea, of course. Despite the
analysis and all the arguments we developed to clarify up to now the will of
God through the history of Israel, some must still wonder what are our
intentions while supporting that according to historical logic and standards of
the absolute, the Messiah cannot be nobody else but Abraham
A truth impossible to circumvent.
The questions
of doctrines are generally very sensitive subjects. The innovations in
this field automatically start a reaction of self-defense hard to put under
control. In this connection, one must recognize that it is normal to want
to defend its faith. Still should be fought the good combat. The fact for
somebody to present himself as an unconditional of Jesus does not imply
anything. It depends on whom or what he calls Jesus. The Jews also believed
they were the only admirers of the true God. That did not prevent the majority
of them from being pitilessly isolated from history for having shown
insufficient receptivity toward the Truth.
As one saw by
examining the history of Israel, there is nothing easier than to invent a
divinity. It is a very different
history when someone wants to find the true God. God does not marry the obsessions of human beings. He is
single and immutable like the Truth. The one who does not know the Truth does
not know God.
Until we finished by reconstituting what
occurred exactly to Israel at the beginning of our era, Christianity was a
religion like the others. I.e. it was not possible to establish its
authenticity. The question was to believe or not to believe. On the
same pattern, much of false doctrines, they also, thrived. An unacceptable
situation from the point of view of the absolute. With due respect
to apostles of ideological diversity, at the end of history, there will
remain only one faith. With regard to Christianity, we have said already too
much so that the suspense can remain about it. It is not the same in regard
of some legitimate interrogations naturally raised by the new data
introduced into the Jewish problem.
If, as all the
elements of investigation seem to confirm it, the subject of disagreement of
Jesus of Nazareth with his compatriots is about a question of interpretation of
history, and that the latter was so sure of his fact that he preferred to die
rather than betray the truth, that is that the Messiah, the future absolute
Master of the world and supreme sovereign of humanity, cannot be a unspecified
son of David (Matthew 22: 41-46) but --
as we have established it ourselves by pushing until end the logic initiated by
the Galilean in person -- Abraham, the father of the nation. How can he
still claim that he is the Messiah, the only intermediary between God and men?
Historical evidence.
The answer is
not complicated; it is enough to show a little imagination. It is not
always easy thing to find somebody to think for oneself. The Jews had to wait 2000
years before giving birth to a genius capable to interpret their history. Even
then, they could not follow because it would have been necessary that they made
also some steps in the direction of the truth. It is thus imperative for all those who
claim to ensure the continuity of the line of Abraham to do better than them.
It is recommended to them to seek to find by themselves the answer to the
question raised here if not to advance the great adventure of the thought at
least not to let themselves exceed by it. We will continue all the same to
dissect the problem point by point. Our study will be used at least as
reference.
One remembers, at the beginning
of this study, how we try, starting from some indices drawn from the New
Testament, to reconstitute the bottom of Jesus’ thought. Mission impossible
since we were not in theory in the mind of the Galilean Prophet. However, there
is always a way of solving a problem, it is enough to seek. The human being is
a changeable and evolutionary being, it is difficult to encircle him it
constantly. On the other hand, God, him, does not change. It is the same one,
yesterday, today and tomorrow. There is neither mischievousness, nor turnings
in him; he acts through history according to immutable principles. For all those
reasons, it is more reassuring to deal with him. In short, one can know God and
penetrates his plans. It is enough to make the effort to be as perfect as he
is.
Approaching the perfection of
God is not an irrational idea. It is an ideal to which any human being eager to
set himself free must inevitably tend. If the large majority of the men does
not make it, it is certainly not the God’s fault. To put himself in phase with
him, it is very often enough to want it. Here is a quite simple example perfectly
in relation to the subject evoked here. Imagine one moment that you were
omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God. Would you go finding a peaceful
Mesopotamian, who required anything from you, to promise him that he would be
the Master of the world and that he could not count his children anymore one
day whereas you know pertinently that you will not be able to hold your word?
Moreover, what can that mean for God: not to be able?
Any judicious and honest man will stay away from such intrigues. And who
will go until thinking he’s higher than God is? Can one go beyond the absolute?
Although, from immemorial time, some human groups sought to cut a theology that
suit them, It does not remain less true that a divinity that does not breathe
perfection could not logically be called God. It is that simple. In short, it
is impossible that God of Abraham was as incoherent as the Israelites thought it. It took one day or
the other that one among them realizes it. We only ask to believe that that one
was Jesus of Nazareth. Since he
declared: the Father and me, we are one, we want to suppose that he carried out
at least an intellectual communion with God. In this case, it is hard to
imagine the supposed savior of the world giving in to the inconsistency as the
least advised of his compatriots.
What is interesting in reality, it is that whatever the time or the
place the men belong to, there is a commonplace where they can recognize
themselves again. This commonplace is God, to employ a term that everyone
knows. However, one can name it differently. The essential to retain it is that
as long as a man did not arrive to this place, death will probably have
significance for him. Not for someone who has reached the spiritual level
claimed by Jesus of Nazareth. He can die at any time and reappear in any
country at any time; he will not be lost. He will always recognize himself in
the absolute. Indeed, in this field, it can exist only one truth and only one
way to this truth. Then, if Jesus of Nazareth is really who the Christians
believe, he surely could not elude the dialectical course that we tried to
describe throughout this study. It is mathematical.
This is the theory. What about the facts? Does Jesus’ life comprise
evidences that allow corroborating the thesis developed here?
A negative answer would be astonishing. It should be remembered that
until now we only specify an idea put forward by the Galilean Prophet himself.
That said, one must note through the Gospels a manifest will not to reveal by himself
all the story. In addition, he took the precaution not to write whereas the
writing prophets were already a tradition in Israel. One thus have on this
subject only indirect testimonies which have however the convenience not to be
by no means directed. In short, Jesus left to history the care to testify to
him. The Bible, from A to Z, does only that. The writing of this book being
spread out over several millennia, nobody could live long enough and keep
enough continuation in his ideas to guarantee its coherence and such a
convergence towards the realization of a supreme goal: the triumph of the
Truth.
The meeting with Zacchaeus.
Many people think that God is an inaccessible being, living in the far end
of the cosmos and that it is necessary to resort to very particular exercises
to encounter him. In addition, in this lost world, the topic of the silence of
God returns periodically alamode. However, God could not be closer than that to
the man since he is immanent to him. Through the events, he gesticulates "
hopelessly " to meet him. Unfortunately, the majority of men appears
unable to correctly analyze the language of history. The ordinary facts often
carry heavy messages. To be convinced of it, one will take an example drawn
from the life of Jesus, an episode apparently without large significance that
only the evangelist Luke judged appropriate to report.
Jesus entered Jericho and crossed the city. And here is a man called
Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector, and he was rich. And he sought to see
who Jesus was, but he could not because of the crowd, because he was of short
stature. He thus ran ahead and went up on a sycamore tree to see Jesus who had
to pass by there. When he arrived at this place, Jesus raised the eyes and said
to him: " Zacchaeus, go down quickly because it is necessary for me today
to stay at your house. " And quickly he went down and accepted with joy.
When they saw it, all murmured and said: " he went to a sinning man’s
house! " But Zacchaeus, upright, said to the Lord: " Lord, I will
give half of my goods to the poor, and if I extorted something of somebody, I
return the quadruple to him. " And Jesus says to him: " Today,
salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham. For the
Son of Man came to seek and save what was lost. " (Luke 19: 11)
What can say this passage of the Gospel to the large majority of the
Christians? What about an ecclesiastic who would have to make preaching
starting from the above-mentioned text? According to his talent, he can even
find matter to write a book. As by enchantment, latent apologetic elements will
come out of this text. However, in the last analysis, he will have probably
missed the essential. As one saw during preceding chapters, criticism was a
major asset of Jesus of Nazareth in his search of the truth. And, at any time,
he did not forbid his disciples to make use of it. Precisely, the interest of
this passage of the Gospel of Luke, in the point of view of history, resides in
a paradoxical way in its weirdness. Is not it a strange situation when Jesus
himself makes salvation depend on the quality of son of Abraham?
Some doctrines claiming the
teaching of Jesus proclaim that the salvation of humanity came starting from the
sacrifice of Golgotha. Like the Jews, unquestionable Christians tend to put the
emphasis over a given period of the history and to forget the remainder. It is
exact that if Jesus had challenged the plan of God while refusing to die on the
cross, he would have sabotaged history and caused the loss of whole humanity.
Thus, the event deserves the importance that one generally grants to it.
Nevertheless, it does not constitute all the history. The problem of those Christians, it is that they continue to think
according to the flesh and especially see Jesus as the son of Joseph and Mary
of Nazareth, i.e. a being definite and limited in time and space and not the
eternal Word of God who was in charge of history before the time of the Roman
occupation of Palestine (John 1: 16). In any case, there is the proof starting
from verse 11 of the above-mentioned text that Jesus of Nazareth did not intend
to walk away from the truth, no matter what he could say or imply to his
disciples. For him, the primacy of Abraham is beyond question.
Previously, to prove that Jesus does not rank above Abraham, we evoked
the historical logic that wants that it is preferably Abraham the owner and
Jesus who works for him, which may have hurt some susceptibilities. However, in
the account of Luke, Jesus recognizes it implicitly and that does not seem to
disturb him not at all. At all events, when human psychology is known, one can
only be astonished by the spontaneousness with which he refer to Abraham and
not to himself or more vaguely to God. The situation, in spite of its subtlety,
to the point accredits the analysis that we made on the history of Israel, more
especially as the most concerned man of the situation agrees to admit the
judicious paramount place allocated to the father of the Jewish nation. What an
odd attitude for somebody who would like to become himself the Master of the
world and the absolute head of humanity! Nevertheless, there is no confusion in
the Galilean’s mind. He remains coherent and consequent with himself until the
end. One will see it as one advances in this study.
Before closing this subject, we
will get busy with a last development. To break passivity or apologetic
tendency, we had recourse to a pitiless criticism of the texts of the Bible,
including this passage of the Gospel of Luke. This thorough search showed that
the truth is generally where one expects less. In many cases, what one takes
for a mystery is the obviousness itself. Thus, by peeling the history of
Zacchaeus with the required criticism, an average intelligence could have
discovered the truth of Jesus of Nazareth. Conversely, the reality of the scene
reported by the evangelist Luke is perceived better when one has in advance an
idea of this truth, which must be the case of a number of those who followed
our reasoning since the beginning. Those ones are placed better to try the
positive reconstitution of the true environment of the situation, to imagine
finally with which pride Jesus had pronounced these words: he’s also a son of
Abraham. "
Lazarus and the bad rich person.
The preceding example may appear
insufficiently eloquent to some. Their lack of perspicacity does not really
deserves a detailed attention, but one must nevertheless concede to them that
there is still better in the Gospels.
Let us consider now, in the Gospels of Luke once again, another passage
that we reproduce in integrality for more convenience.
There was a rich man who was
clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. And a poor,
named Lazarus, lay close to his gate, covered of ulcers. He would have agreed
to be satisfied with the crumbs which fell from the table of the rich person.
Moreover, the dogs themselves came to lick its ulcers. However, it occurred
that the poor one day died and was carried by the angels in the Abraham’ bosom.
The rich person also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he
raises the eyes and sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Then he
exclaimed: "Father Abraham, have mercy on me and sends Lazarus to soak in
water the end of his finger to refresh my tongue, because I am tormented in
this flame. " But Abraham said: " My child, remember you that you
received your good thing during your life, and Lazarus equally his evil things;
Now he is comforted, and you, you are tormented. It is not all: between us and
you a large abyss was fixed, so that those which would like to pass from here
to you cannot, and that one does not cross either of over there to us. "
He says then: " I thus request from you, father, to send Lazarus in my
father’s house, because I have five brothers; that he carries his testimony,
for fear they do not come, them also, in this place of torture. And Abraham
said to him: " They have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them -
" No, father Abraham, but if somebody from dead goes to them, they will repent ". But he says to him: "
Since they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, even if somebody
resuscitate among the dead, they will not be convinced. " (Luke 16:
19-30).
How many people belonging to a Christian country don’t know the story of
Lazarus? Since two thousand years, millions of people heard, read and read
again this text without stumbling. However, any logical spirit should be
stunned while taking note of this parabola.
Isn't Jesus of Nazareth, in the
opinion of all the Christians, the Son of God, the Messiah, the King of the
kings, the Lord of the lords, the only mediator between God and the men, the
Judge of the nations, the Sovereign of the world to come, the Name which is above
any name? And the one that he introduces as the head of the Kingdom of beyond
is Abraham!
It is incredible as one can fix the Truth right in the eyes and not see
it. Moreover, we have here nothing to learn anyone. The truth, everyone knew it
already. Often, it is on all the lips. But, nobody seems to realize it. For
example, one requests sometimes that his loved ones to be received in the
country of Abraham, after their death. Generally, one amalgamates readily,
Kingdom of heaven, Promised Land, paradise. It is the proof that the history of
salvation was well understood. Then, why all this confusion?
It is perfectly useless to make
a whole speech on some subjects. Christian or not, one cannot deny a fact. It
remains clear, according to Jesus, that at the end of history, humanity will
gather in the Kingdom of heaven with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the other
prophets. (Matthew 8: 11); (Luke 13: 28). The fact that he could admit, with
full knowledge, that all the generations of the elected people will be found at
the same time in a same space constitutes a true revolution in the Hebraic
thought. The drama, it is that the majority of men does not even realize it.
This logical report made by Jesus nevertheless will upset the history of
humanity while starting with Israel. Indeed, the bases of traditional Judaism
break down from there and particularly the messianic doctrine related to David.
As requirement of the coherence of the history of Israel and reality of the
existence of the God of Abraham, the Messiah will have to meet David, his
supposed father and model and especially Abraham, who one readily gave for dead
so, perhaps, to better share its heritage. Who will be, under these conditions,
the head of the Kingdom of heaven?
For the Jews, this question,
that they believed already resolved, was suspect, even heretic. Today, the
simple fact of doubting of its answer could constitute in the eyes of some
declared Christians a crime of lese-majesty. Nevertheless, can one be more
Christian than Jesus himself can? He
did not hesitate to bring his vote to the appropriate authority. He calls the
Kingdom of heaven the Abraham’s bosom, straightforwardly. And how could he
react differently? Abraham is actually the father of everyone. In any event, he
holds the monopoly of the Promise. One can inherit only from him (Matthew 3:
79). What makes impertinent the idea
that the position of Jesus on the question was an addition of the evangelists.
From the beginning to the end of the Gospel, he remained faithful to the same
logic that we highlighted in advance through the history of Israel and which,
until now, can only embarrass most Christians.
In any case, they must be careful not to make the same errors as the
Jews. It is useless to elude the problems. It is better to face and to solve
them before thinking of going forward. The problems of Christianity, although
they appear a priori very complex, can be solved. It is only a question of
method. If Jesus of Nazareth is despite of everything the King of the kings, if
the Kingdom of heaven is not this world, if the beyond is the Abraham’s bosom,
if the Abraham’s bosom is the Promised Land and if the Promised Land is the
paradise, conclusion?
A child play. In theory, even a
fool can find the answer. Nevertheless, the greatest scientists and specialists
missed the truth during centuries. It is the great mystery of awareness. One
cannot understand some things if that were not given from above (Luke 10 v.
21). Moreover, it is necessary to take into account the Animal that, while putting
itself between the conscious mind and the subconscious mind of the man,
prevents him from carrying out his total awakening.
The Gospel of John rescuing the Truth.
Speaking about the Animal, some among those who will be likely to take
note of this text must hear at the bottom of them a voice saying to them:
" There are only intellectual deductions in this study. They do not prove
anything. Jesus never concluded clearly about the question. " Lies, one
knows. The father of lies, one also knows. The fate that is dedicated to his
maneuverings, one does not doubt it: the Truth always triumphs. Not only Jesus
directly mentioned the question, but that was also reported in the New
Testament. To all those that would astonish, it is advised to refer to chapter
8 of the Gospel of John, starting from verse 20 in particular. Here, we will
restrict ourselves to quoting the essential.
The Jews said to him: " Now
we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, the prophets also and you say:
" If somebody keeps my word, he will never taste death. " Are you
greater than Abraham, our father, who died? The prophets also died. Who do you
claim to be? " Jesus answered: " If I glorify myself, my glory is
nothing; it is my father who glorifies me, him, of whom you say: " He is
our God ", and you do not know him; but I do know him; and if I said:
" I do not know him ", I would be similar to you, a liar. But I know
him and I keep his word. " Abraham, your father, rejoiced to see my day.
It saw it and was transported with joy. " The Jews said to him then:
" You are not fifty years old, and you saw Abraham! " Jesus says to
them: " most assuredly, I say it to you: before Abraham existed, I am.
They then collected stones for throwing at him; but Jesus concealed himself and
left the temple. (John 8: 52-60)
Hebrew headache.
" Abraham, your father,
rejoiced to see my day. It saw it and it was transported with joy " (John
8: 56).
Here is a little sentence that,
during centuries, defied the intelligence of the greatest and specialists of
the Bible. Indeed, it is one of the most obscure verses of the New Testament,
and one could not prevent oneself from seeking an explanation to it. An
explanation that would be, of course, in conformity with the official doctrine
of Christianity. It is precisely where starts the problem. Before initiating a new explanation attempt,
more closely let us examine the various commonplaces relating to this capital
verse of the gospel of John.
When Jesus speaks about his Day, one would tend to make the connection
with various significant days in his life. The day of his birth for example,
the supposed day of his advent or the famous Day of Yahweh describes in the Old
Testament that could to apply to Jesus according to the Christian doctrines.
However, the least that one can say, it is that when Jesus spoke, neither the
famous Day of Yahweh nor the day of the glorious advent of the Messiah had
arrived. Would it be then about the day of his birth? Perhaps. However, is this
the question?
In the life, it is necessary to
be practical. To preserve chances to solve a problem, it is necessary to start
by setting it. What is the problem
here? It is clear: how could Abraham, dead two thousand years ago, see one of
the days of Jesus, it does not matter which? Today, one knows in an
indisputable way about at which time lived Jesus. And whatever meaning is
applied to the expression " to see my day ", it remains a reference
to time, to history. For the moment, one will not lose oneself in other
considerations of this kind because the situation is sufficiently clear.
According to the ultimate analysis, this verse of the Gospel of John implies,
initially at least, that Abraham was in flesh and blood at the beginning of our
era and that he was a close relation of Jesus of Nazareth.