HOME

 

JESUS AND ABRAHAM

A THRONE FOR TWO?

Extracts of “The Alpha and the Omega”

 

notice:

This document has been translated by Systran software.

Revision is not complete

See the original document.

 

Intelligence in question.

The lamentable failure of Israel and the analysis that we made showed at which point intellectual faculties, contrary to certain generally accepted ideas, were important for the spiritual salvation of humankind.  Unfortunately, the capacity to understand does not reach the same level at the individuals. The lucky ones need only one simple catch and all is positioned back in their head. On the other hand, certain 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 the history, one must avoid underestimating the power of the Silly thing. By applying us 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 to update the elementary logic that underlies the epopee of salvation (Apocalypse 5 v. 15).  Indeed, nobody seems to be aware that the messianic doctrine was only a reformulation 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 with the light.  Then, for all those who feel still lost, let’s summarize once more: God has promised to the ancestor of the Jewish people that he would put him in possession of the world and that 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 the 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 one the domination, 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 like 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 nor 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 certain events to discover the meaning of certain 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. Nevertheless, 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 Christian adhere 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-defence 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 mean a lot. All depends on who or of 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. To find true God, it is a very different history. Because that God does not marry the obsessions of the 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. nothing made it 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 certain 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, can 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 put here if not to advance the great adventure of the thought at least not to let themselves exceed by it. We all the same will continue 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 the thought of Jesus of Nazareth. Mission impossible since we were not in theory in the head 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 penetrate 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 fault of God. 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 t God. Would you go finding a peaceful Mesopotamian, who required anything from you, to promise to 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? Can one go beyond the absolute? Although, from immemorial time, certain human groups sought to cut a theology that suit them, It does not remain less true that a divinity that does not breathe the perfection could not logically be called God. It is that simple. In short, it is impossible that God of Abraham, whom we want to consider well until proof of the opposite as the true God, 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 saver 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.  Essence 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 have reached the spiritual level claimed by Jesus of Nazareth. In theory, 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 evidence making it possible to corroborate 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 himself all the story. In addition, it 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 the ideas to guarantee its coherence and such a convergence towards the realization of a supreme goal: 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 to encounter him, it is necessary to resort to very particular exercises. In addition, in this mislaid 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, it gesticulate " hopelessly " to meet him. Unfortunately, the majority of men appears unable to analyze the language of history correctly. 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 good 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 it 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 Luc, 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 Christian 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 causes the loss of whole humanity. Thus, the event deserves the importance that one generally grants to it. Nevertheless, he 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 the 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 Luc, 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 head of the Galilean. He remains coherent and consequent with himself until the end. And one will see it as one advances in this study.

 Before closing this subject, we will get busy with a last development. To break with the passivity or apologetic tendency, we had recourse to a pitiless critic of the texts of the Bible, including this passage of the Gospel of Luc. 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 Luc 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 one 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. "

 Lazare and the bad rich person.

 The preceding example can 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, always in the Gospels of Luc, another passage that we reproduce in integrality for more convenience.

I L there had a rich man who was covered crimson and of fine flax and made each day brilliant expensive. And poor, named Lazarus, lay close to his gate very covered of ulcers. It would have agreed to be satisfied what fell from the table of the rich person? well more, the dogs themselves came to lick its ulcers. However it occurred that the poor one died and was carried by the angels in the centre of Abraham. The rich person also died and it is buried. In Hadès, in prey with tortures, it raises the eyes and sees by far Abraham, and Lazare in his centre. Then it exclaimed: " Abraham father, have pity of me and sends Lazare to soak in water the end of its finger to refresh the tongue, because I am tormented in this flame. " But Abraham known as: " My child, remember you that you received your goods during your life, and Lazarus equally his evils; 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 on your premise cannot it, and that one does not cross either of over there on our premises. " He says then: " I thus request from you, father, to send Lazarus in the house of my father, because I have five brothers; that he carries its testimony, for fear they do not come, them also, in this place of torture. And Abraham of saying: " They have Moïse and the prophets; that they listen to them - " Not, father Abraham, says it, but if somebody from deaths will find them, they will repent ". But he says to him: " Since they do not listen to Moïse and the Prophets, even if somebody resuscitate among deaths, they are not convinced. " (Luc 16 v. 19-30).

How many people belonging to a Christian country don’t know the history of Lazarus? Two thousand years during, of the million and the million people heard, read and read again this text without stumbling. However, any logical spirit should have fallen from naked while taking note from this parabola.

 Isn't Jesus of Nazareth, of 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 here that it is Abraham whom it introduces like the head of the Kingdom of beyond!

It is insane as one can fix the Truth right in the eyes and not see it. Remainder, we have here the claim nothing to learn with anyone. The truth, everyone knew it already. Often, it on all the lips, is repeated with any end of field. But, étrangement, nobody seems to realize it. For example, in the liturgy of the burials, one requests sometimes so that the late one is received in the country of Abraham. Generally, one amalgamates readily, Kingdom of heaven, promised land, paradise. It is the proof that the history of the hello was well understood. Then, why all this confusion?

 It is things on which it is perfectly useless to make a whole speech. That one is Christian or not, one cannot deny a fact. There remains clear that for Jesus, at the end of the history, humanity will gather in the Kingdom of heaven with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the other prophets. (Matthieu 8 v 11); (Luc 13 v. 28). The fact that it could admit, with full knowledge of the facts, 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 there. This logical report made by Jesus nevertheless will upset the history of humanity while starting with Israel. Indeed, in fact the bases even traditional Judaism break down from there and in particular the messianism davidien. As requirement of the coherence of the history of Israel and reality of the existence of God of Abraham, the Messiah will have to meet David, his supposed father and model and especially Abraham whom 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?

 Already, for the Jewish messianists, this question whom they believed already regulated was suspect, heretic even. Today still, the simple fact of doubting its answer could constitute with the eyes of certain declared Christians a crime of lese-majesty. But can one be Christian than Jesus himself? For its part, it is not obstructed to bring its vote to the appropriate authority. It calls the Kingdom of heaven the centre of Abraham, straightforwardly. And how could it react differently? Abraham, it is well the father of all. In any event, it is him which holds the monopoly of the Promise. One can inherit only compared to him (Matthieu 3 v. 79). The case is thus without call. What makes at the same time impertinent the idea that the position of Jesus on the question was an addition of the evangelists even a mistake his share. From beginning to end of the Gospel, there remained faithful to this same logic that we highlighted in advance through the history of Israel and who, until now, can only embarrass the majority of the Christians.

In any case, they may find it beneficial not to make the same errors as the Jews. It useless to elude the problems. It is better to face and to solve them before thinking of going from the front one. The problems of Christianity, although it appears a priori very complex, can be solved. It’s only a question of method. If Jesus of Nazareth is despite everything the King of the kings, if the Kingdom of heaven is not this world, if the beyond is the centre of Abraham, if the centre of Abraham is the promised ground and if the promised ground is the paradise, conclusion?

 A child play. In theory, even a mental arrear can find the answer. And yet the largest scientists and specialists passed from there to with dimensions during centuries. It is there the great mystery of the conscience. One cannot include/understand certain things if that were not given of in top (Luc 10 v. 21). Moreover, it is necessary to take into account the Animal which, while putting itself in cross between the conscious one and the subconscious of the man, prevents it from carrying out plenitude its being.

The Gospel of Jean to the rescue of the Truth.

Speaking about the Animal, some among those which will be likely to take note of this text must hear at the bottom of them a voice saying to them: " They are only intellectual deductions there. They do not prove anything. Jesus, it, never came to a conclusion clearly about the question. " The lie, one knows. The father of the lie also, one knows. The fate which is dedicated to its maneuvers, one does not doubt it at all: the Truth always triumphs. Not only Jesus directly mentioned the question, but that also brought back in the New Will. All those which that would astonish, it is advised to refer in chapter 8 of the Gospels of Jean, starting from verse 20 in particular. Here, we will restrict ourselves to quote essence.

 The Jews said to him: " Now we know that you have a daemon. Abraham died, the prophets also and you say: " If somebody keeps my word, it will never taste death. " Es you larger 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 me glorifie, him of which you say: " He is our God ", and you do not know it; but me, I know it; and if I said: " I do not know it ", I would be similar to you, a liar. But I know it and I keep his word. " Abraham, your father, exults with the thought which it would see my day. It saw it and was in the joy. " The Jews said to him then: " You are not fifty years old, and you saw Abraham! " Jesus says to them: " In truth, truth, I say it to you: before Abraham existed, I am. They then collected stones for throwing to him; but Jesus concealed himself and left the temple. (Jean 8 v. 52-60)

 Hebrew headache

 " Abraham, your father, exults with the thought that he would see my day. It saw it and it was transported of joy " (Jean 8 v. 56)

 Voilà a small sentence which, during centuries, gave well wire with reorder to largest the exegetes and specialists in the Bible. Indeed, it is one of the most obscure verses of the New Will, and one could not prevent oneself from seeking an explanation to him. An explanation that would be, of course, in conformity with the official doctrines of Christianity. It is precisely where starts blocking.  before initiating a new attempt at explanation, more closely let us examine the various commonplaces relating to this capital verse of Evansville of Jean.

When Jesus speaks about his Day, one would tend to make the bringing together with various significant days in his life. The day of his birth for example, the supposed day of his advent or the famous Sunday describes in the Old Will which could to apply to Jesus according to the Christian doctrines. But the least which one can say, it is that at the moment when Jesus spoke, neither the famous Sunday nor the day of the glorious advent of the Messiah had arrived. Would it be then about the day of its birth? Perhaps. However, is this the question there?

 In the life, it is necessary to be practical. To preserve chances to solve a problem, it is necessary to start by posing it. However, what is the problem here? It is clear: how could Abraham, dead 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, one even manages to roughly go back the principal events to his life. And some is the mystical clothing which one would like to cover the expression " to be born ", it remains a reference to time, with the 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 Jean implies, initially at least, that Abraham was alive in flesh and blood at the beginning of our era and that he was a close relation of Jesus of Nazareth.

Doctrinal dilemma.

Like the Jews in the New Testament, the first reaction of much of Christians would be to draw aside a similar possibility. They will undoubtedly be to consolidate in their position by the fact that the presence of Abraham was never announced in the entourage of Jesus or nowhere in Palestine at the time of the Roman occupation. Jesus is however formal on the question.

By examining the history of Israel, we saw how the pride of its people pushed it to believe that it was more intelligent and more judicious than God. Since this time, the human nature did not change. Those that, today, recognized themselves more or less in the teaching of Jesus   are exposed   to the same   temptation.

  

In the final analysis, why the Jews as well as the Christians show themselves so refractory   with the idea as Abraham could have made a turning by Palestine two thousand years ago. Because it runs up against the reason?   Not, quite to the contrary.

To approach the question, one is obliged to return to   this famous moral problem that we already raised in the specific case of Israel. In general,  men prefer to act in the black, because they know how much their actions are bad.   However, they enjoy themselves and would not like that the pleasure ceases for nothing in this world. It is sad but it is like that. In short, they prefer to follow the destroying dashes of the flesh rather than the saving standards of the absolute. And this attitude is reflected even  in their systems of thought.

 
In the Judaism as in Christianity, one was never concerned with the final fate of Abraham. What constitutes an incredible failure. In fact, what one sought, it is not so much the absolute, but rather a way   of fixing history with its own interests. And the fastest way and simplest will be the best. However, it is an error.  History is undoubtedly not God, as some modern philosophies would tend to assert. However, one can know God only through it.    to mistake on the history is to mistake on God.

 
However, the Jews never wanted to make the effort necessary to understand their history.   They did not envisage anything if God would decide to make justice with   Abraham by bringing to life again and by finally putting it in possession of the Promised Land. By selfishness, they seemed rather to bet on a disgrace of Abraham and an inaccuracy not to say a resignation of the God of the Bible. As one already saw, the great sin of the Jews was to want to bring back the history   to themselves and to recover the heritage of Abraham at their exclusive profit.  Jesus of Nazareth did not fail to reproach it to them in the parabola of the vine growers (Marc 12: 1-12) but in vain.   The skimped logic of the Jews met with   wonder their personal idea about history, why give up it?   Finally, they preferred to go for the most odious of the crimes rather than to agree to re-examine their narrow ideas.

 


The heart of   the question.

 The great difference between Jews and Christians, one knows it already: The ones categorically refused to take into account the teaching of Jesus   of Nazareth, while the others, among them much of Jews, found a subject of hope in the doctrines of  resurrection preached by the latter. However, the disciples of Jesus, them either, do not understand history and hardly showed up to now more perspicacity than the Jews. They either do not seem to have considered a return of Abraham in history and could only be taken aback, embarrassed at the highest point in front of this possibility.

 As one showed previously, there is no compatibility between the historical function of Abraham, appointed Master of the world and spiritual father of humanity and that of the Messiah, king of the kings and lord of the lords. The only and single way   of considering an inevitable cohabiting between these two characters, it is that the Messiah is Abraham himself. In the Writings and the Jewish tradition, nothing really opposed it. If Abraham reappears in the line of David, where is the problem?   On the other hand, things seem more complicated  in Christianity.   Because henceforth the Messiah has   a name and, in addition, the majority of the declared Christians think that Abraham is a man while Jesus   is a God-man.  In this case there is no possible coexistence between the two characters. It will be one or the other.   Since, generally, it is believed that Jesus   ranks above   Abraham.   Then it will be Jesus.

If only the situation were that simple.

In any case, it is now understood why a exegete, having received a given education, will see all in the verse in question, except the clear and clear idea that it expresses: he is unconsciously prevented against Abraham. The Jewish and Christian doctrines, at least as they are generally presented, do not leave any more a place to Abraham. so, the latter, with all the respect one owes him, would make it better remain in its tomb.   Otherwise, it is the great revolution.

But whatever horizon or culture to which men belong, they all are governed, as the remainder of creation besides, by a universal value: reason. This is why everyone will admit following logic: so that an Israelite can come to collect by default the heritage of Abraham, his father, -- it is exactly what all is about in the messianic doctrine -- it would have to be considered that the latter died for always. The Jews, as one already saw, did not have a problem with this prospect. They seemed to say: Abraham died, it is life; but a promise, it is a promise. A promise, it is a debt, would say others. Generally, when one contracted a debt near late, one discharges some near his family. Then God will make in the same way     with regard to Israel. Not only the Jews thought like men, they took also God for a man.

These people who   knew to inculcate in the world the idea of absolute had itself   all the sorrows of the world   to conform to it. However one does not progress in the history to   move back.   The world Judeo-Christian for a long time identified God   with the Absolute; it does not have more other choice but to remain consequent with itself. Creator of the universe, Yahweh is theoretically the first and the last reference. It would not know   to be with the drag of the events. The death of Abraham could not surprise it. To suppose the opposite amounts   admitting that he is a liar and an incompetent, in short, that there does not exist.

 

An useless question.

It is the characteristic of the man to be mistaken and evolve/move.   But, for God, it was never question at   any time of the duration to miss with the word that he had given to   Abraham.   The Bible is pilot for him. All those which would doubt this fact do not have that to refer to the book of the Genesis where Abraham insists to know if it would really enter in possession of the promised ground. And its God was not made request for confirming to him (Genesis 15 v. 7-11).   This passage of the Bible can appear mean like argument.   The modern man will find perhaps incredible that God addresses directly to   a man or that the process of conservation of these traditions is not very clear. However, believers don’t see in the Bible journalistic or scientific chronicles, but God that seeks to communicate with the man through real or imaginary events. Jesus, also, had recourse to   parabolas to him to teach crowd. The preferred language of God, it is thus that of the dialectical history. To discover the logic that underlies the events, it is to discover the thought of God.

If it is true that God of the Bible also formulated the promises with regard to the descent of Abraham, it first of all did it with regard to the latter personally. However, the book of the Genesis teaches us that the Hebrew patriarch died as a foreigner on the ground of Canaan which was to be there his. For a long time, Israelites seemed to consider this fact as what there was of more normal. But   what good is miser on the absurdity? With what to good practice the ostrich policy by burying its conscience not to see the problems?   Why not consider preferably and   in all serenity the assumption of a cyclic deployment of the History and an episodical march of Abraham to the genuine Promised Land?

Contrary to much of people which were satisfied to live, the Hebrews could praise themselves to have a true history with very clear problems. As we saw by leaning us on the Jewish case, more one is far away from the center of the history, less one is likely to include/understand the life. The elected people, it, were with the c?ur this dynamics and had the incredible chance to solve the mystery of the life and death. A chance which perhaps arises all the two thousand years. In short, they had only to raise the true questions and the history was given the responsibility to bring the answers.

Unfortunately, these questions were never put as it should be. Two millennia later, we will not be made request to raise them in their place, because this history in the final analysis interests everyone. Then, is the life a succession of unforeseeable occurrences or can one speaks about rationality in the deployment of the events? In the second case of figure, how to explain that Abraham who gave itself so much evil, which accepted so many tests died without to have seen the realization of the Promise? At would the bottom, this reality which one calls death be only one passage in another sphere? In did this possibility, Abraham only leave to continue his journey to the Promised Land in another time and another space? Will it arrive one day to with it?   In short, God will it remain faithful until the end with the promise which it made to his Elected official?

It it would not have been believed, but it is a chance to encounter problems in the life. At least, there will be questions to be posed. They is only by raising questions that one ends up realizing of certain realities, in a word, that one can develop his conscience. It is easy for a person living in the periphery of the history to say itself: " the Bible, it is the word of God, all must go there as on casters ".   In other words, the problem of the Jews, it is not its problem. It was completely different for Jesus of Nazareth. He,   it was Jewish separate whole. And the questions which arose for him threatened the cogency of the religion of Abraham and at the same time the existence even of its nation. One then includes/understands better the reasons which pushed it to solve once and for all the problems of the history of Israel.

Even nowadays, many religions and systems of thought do not hold counts the concept of absolute of it. To the input in scene of the Hebrews, the gods did not have any obligation to be perfect.   One lent to some frankly immoral conduits, and everyone found that normal. With men like Abraham or Jesus of Nazareth, humanity gradually will leave its mental underdevelopment. First introduced into the human thought the concept of absolute, the second carried to his paroxysm.

In practical theology, God of a man is not that which it fears or which it claims to adore but that that he likes. Quite naturally, the young person Jesus of Nazareth had been caught of a true passion for the truth, justice, the absolute in word. He was itself so perfectionist which he did not conceive that a divinity, would be this Yahvé, God of her people, can think and act after a fashion. Not, a perfect being does not have fun with launching vain promises. It is not dishonoured while missing with its word.

Fortunately for Jesus, Yahweh was precisely this absolute to which it aspired and which actually attracted it towards him. Indeed, God of Israel only asked to be discovered. It was enough in fact to put the question of its veracity and the validity of its engagement with respect to Abraham to realize of what has escaped with the near total of the Jews, namely that all the history of their country was built around the idea of   the indefectible   fidelity of God   to the Promise made   to his Elected official.   As the veil falls on the history, this idea will become increasingly clear.   Indeed, There exists much of intermediate aspects of the history of Israel on which we will not insist for the moment but who undoubtedly played a significant role in the awakening of Jesus   de Nazareth. We deliberately chose to concentrate us on the beginning and the end of this history and the two characters who symbolize them

The question specifies which is mentioned here and whose theologies Jewish as well as Christian apparently did not make great case were and remain of an importance such as God of Abraham, before any later provision, judged good to proceed to a development preliminary on its true intentions and to take in the circumstance the history for witness.

Today still, few people suspect it, but the most convincing testimony of the fidelity of God to the word given and, therefore, of the reality of its existence, it is Jesus   himself   which is supposed to bring it.   It will first of all bring it towards and counters the opinion of the majority of its compatriots. However, its testimony to remain effective was to be indirect (Jean 8 v. 54). That can seem paradoxical but it is like that. It only should be remembered that God is to some extent the higher dimension of the human conscience. To reach God, i.e. this higher level of conscience, the means the surest remainder the dialectical one. Jesus of Nazareth, itself, were obliged to make his small advance until the Truth.   If it had been expressed openly in front of its compatriots, they would have been in the obligation to believe it on word and would not have had the means of becoming aware, therefore to meet God.   In fact, it was the only one in its time to be able to apprehend the truth.   So that this truth belongs now   to the history and is accessible to   everyone, it     was necessary that Jesus himself   entered the history in the way   which one knows.   Thanks to the bloody homage which it paid   to the Truth, the world can in   its turn know the Truth. Then, it will be able to become aware of its ignorance, its errors, its unjustified fears. From there, it will be able to be released some.

Contrary to other religions whose goodwill rests on agnosticism, in the judéo-christianism ***one can and one must know. With the absolute for compass and the history for witness, no matter who can check today if Jesus of Nazareth were really that which it affirmed being. In the philosophical system resulting from Israel and in reality very short, it can exist only one truth and no one cannot enfreindre the principles dictated by the Reason, would be this the Only son of all-powerful God, because the Reason, Wisdom like known as the Old Will, is to some extent God himself. Now, the whole consists in determining if the truth of Jesus of Nazareth corresponded to single Vérité which can be, that which we did not cease clarifying since the beginning. With this intention, let us start by supposing one moment that Jesus of Nazareth was a badly disposed Jew which would have conceived the idea of a vast imposture while being made pass for the Messiah. If it remained to him despite everything a minimum of common sense, which would be the first precaution to be taken in its case? It is simple: it was to try hard to seal well fall it from Abraham in order to be able to be posed in all quietude like the new heir to the world. However, what did it make? It did not cease proclaiming with which wants to hear it that Abraham is alive. But if Abraham is alive, there remains the Master of the world, the father and inevitably the head of humanity, in accordance with the promise which was made to him. Then, was Jesus of Nazareth weak at the point not to know to lie? All the question is there.

 

Other interpretation.

Before arriving at the end of the logic of the history of Israel, one will reconsider famous verse 56 of chapter 8 of the Gospel   of Jean to examine   another point of view enough running in certain mediums.

As it already is known, in all the languages, the expression " to be born " means to be born. Some thus included/understood, as the text indicates it clearly, than Jesus   wanted to say that Abraham was born of his birth. Literally, this interpretation seems valid but, according to a certain logic, it plank the absurdity. Then, some were said: " But not, it is not possible that Jesus   wanted to accredit a similar anachronism. "  And, in margin of the obviousness, they will try to find their own explanation to these obscure words of Jesus.   They, in the final analysis, will lead to   a seizing assembly.

For a long time, certain theologists noticed one striking resemblance between the history of Jesus   and that of Isaac. The destiny seems to have indicated them both   like victims expiatoires and heirs to Abraham.     Actually, one cannot speak about analogy between these two situations. On the one hand, the sacrifice of Isaac did not take place and, on the other hand, the latter ensured the succession of Abraham the time of a generation while Jesus   came to claim the fruits of the Promise on   his personal account and for eternity, that makes a large difference.   Always is it that one found up to now good tone to see as Isaac a prefiguration of Christ.   Forts of this presumption, some   thought that Jesus was rather to make a mystic allusion   to the birth of Isaac.   Perhaps.   But   immediately a question: what does Isaac come to seek there?

The problem here, it is that opinion of much, the fact for Abraham of having attended   the birth of Isaac and to be delighted some are historically correct. As for the cases of Jesus,   the possibility appears so absurd to them   that it is not   the sorrow to even think of it.

See you, 2000 years later, convinced Christians more than are ever decided   to make the same   error as the Jews. With the rigour of the rigours, one could find extenuating circumstances with   the latter.   But for the man who is likely   to live by times which run, it does not have there   Because the modern man knows pertinently that its perception of time is false; however it continues   to react as if it did not know anything of it. And it is there all the drama of mankind: even   with full knowledge of the facts, it is not able   to demolish silly thing.

 

Time and eternity.

In the Bible the name of God is Yahweh, which would like to say I am.   From there, one can understand that it never was, that it will not be, that it is quite simply.   By no means confined in time, it confuses yesterday, today and tomorrow in a same day. This theological innovation due to the Hebrews goes back already to nearly four thousand years. By comparing it with disturbing mythologies surrounding people, one measures better the enormous ditch which existed on the mental level between them and Israel.     Should have been waited the twentieth century so that the man can consider in manner profane the any relativity of time.   This resumption of the precepts of the Bible, some consider it even   as scientist. In spite of the credit whose enjoys science near the man in the street, despite everything the publication whose these theories which one believes founded were the object, without speaking about innumerable the?uvres of fiction which they inspired, the men did not show themselves so in a hurry who that     to re-examine their limited design of the Toujours   life is it that even   for   modern science the death of Abraham cannot want anything to say.   Certain physicists don't they claim only if one could exceed the speed of the light by an unspecified means, one would succeed in   going up in time and bringing back Abraham to the twentieth   century or depositing it at   any period of the history?

This convergence between science and the religion must surprise more one.   One   a long time sought   to oppose them, as being one of the field of rational and the other of irrational and under good of other pretexts still. Certain scientistic hoped a long time that science would come to   end from the religious superstitions.   It is badly to include/understand the reality of the universe. God, it is precisely this immutable value which makes it possible the same causes to produce the same effects. In any event, one can reason only compared to   one sure, invariable and universal reference.   Thus, no matter what one says some, the concept of absolute remains impossible to circumvent. It is only with this reference, that the man can hope   to loop the logical loop and to arrive to a higher level of conscience which would guarantee true freedom to him.

However, scientism does not hold the monopoly of the error and the exaggeration. The image that many people would like to be done of Jesus   de Nazareth, it is that of a magician who has fun   to break the laws of the universe.   Even   more or less advised Christians will have evil   to see in their Christ   a spirit rigorous and rational,   because perhaps of the miracles which were allotted to him, but that, it is another history.   Actually, our study proved, it is exactly the character who it was. It was, if one can employ this image, a scientist of the history.   We saw how, by the deductive method, it     ended up working out its doctrines of resurrection.   And, today, the question of a survival after death raises more reason that faith   the problem is not any more to believe or not to believe in resurrection, to trust Jesus     or to be defied some. There are quite simply in presence   two systems of thought diametrically opposite, completely incompatible between which each human being is obliged to choose. Not question of remaining neutral and especially   not   amalgam enters both.   You make your choice and assume it to you   until the end.

It is necessary to choose between a completely randomly delivered world, where the physical phenomena do not obey   any law, where no reasoning is not possible fault of reference, where consequently no science can exist  ; a universe dedicated to nothing, where death is the rule   and another governed by principles, where the reason supports the development of the thought.
Obviously, the first world to which it is referred here is certainly not the ground.   If somebody does not arrive at   going until the end of the logic of the absolute, it is its problem. That does not call into question this concept. On the other hand, one could not choose a world governed by principles and not go until the end of this logic. It would be even more catastrophic than to deny the obviousness.

Thus, on the basis of the principle of an ordered world, the man finally managed   to consider   by the means of science, a possibility of overcoming death.   Although the proof of the imperfectability of these scientific theories is not made, although it remains extremely improbable that one day the man manages   to exceed the speed of the light by conventional means, this history has nevertheless   the merit to draw the attention to an old religious promise several millennia. But what is most significant   to retain in the scientific step, and which besides justified this digression, it is the method.   Applied sciences   with the history, history   with the religion until metaphysics, it is the same one.

In conclusion, one cannot claim to believe in a God and to think that Abraham disappeared from circulation   forever. It would be a tear made   with the reason.   Had to be chosen its camp. Or well one believes in the absolute or well one does not believe in it.

The Pierre apostle, to support the faith of the Christian first, their wrote: " one day it is like thousand years for God and thousand years like one day " (II Pierre 8 v. 8); (Psalms 90 v. 2-5). Thus, the principle of the relativity of time was known Hebrews for a long time.   Unfortunately, they did not think   of applying it in their interpretation of the history. Far from the scenarios of science fiction, Hebraic theology had solved   in advance it *** TRANSLATION ENDS HERE ***problème de la vie et de la mort. De son point de vue, Dieu problem of the life and death. From his point of view, God is not in the position of a man of the twentieth century nor in that of a Jew of two thousand years ago. He is in theory present everywhere and constantly. Since it does not consider the history starting from a single point, the death of Abraham becomes all inconceivable for him bonnement. The problem here comes owing to the fact that the commun run of human does not have enough imagination simultaneously to manage a great number of information and to ensure the perfect coordination of the thought. But the idea of death, such as it is secreted by the mental inferior, was never compatible with that of the existence of God. For example, when the Jews call their God God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, they take same blow a logical engagement. From the moment when they consider these three patriarchs as died and destroyed, they regard also their God as God of nothing. Thus, true God is inevitably God of alive. Jesus of Nazareth went there straight to the point: for him all live (Luc 20 v. 38). A true Christian, who followed the thought of his Master well, does not have to be astonished if the latter would imply that Abraham would have been born of his birth. Since according to any logic Abraham is living some share in time and space, where it is, it could very well have seen being born Jesus. The objection which raises immediately this interpretation of this verse of the Gospels is the following one: if Abraham were in the history and believed itself mortal, it would have been understood that it was very merry with the idea to have a heir to continue his?uvre. Now what it did he cross the barrier of time, why would be also glad to attend the birth of somebody who would come in practice ravir to him his privileges like the first of the elected officials and to relegate it to nothing? Sometimes it is necessary to consider the things under a negative angle for seizing well D

 

The position of the Jews in the Bible

Before going further, it should be specified that preceding interpretation, namely that Abraham   attended   the birth of Jesus   is not   erroneous for as much. Literally, it is well what said Jesus. In practice, there is a heap in ways of expressing a same idea according to whether one wants to render comprehensible oneself greater number, of an elite, of some warned beforehand people or according to whether one wants to remain in the mystery. Obviously, in this precise case, Jesus     made a point   of veiling his thought. It was   to its Jewish interlocutors to decipher his allegation. And there,   to believe the evangelist Jean of it, they failed to arrive.

 

The majority of people seize only the direction first or literal words. But it is often only one indication   to follow a track of reflexion.   The Jews, them, took at least a step   in this direction.

When the history of Israel is known, one cannot be unaware of that the Hebrews had the practice of the coded languages. They seemed raffoler metaphors, allegories, parabolas, euphemisms and of all kinds of stylistic devices.   In this particular context, the word day would be rather taken in its literary direction and would be used then as generic word to indicate all kinds of periods of time. The Jews were of the same   culture than Jesus. This is why they were very quickly included/understood.

And what thus included/understood the Jews?

 

They understood that Jesus   said the contemporary of Abraham.   It is what they retained by deduction.   Literally, Jesus   would have rather claimed that Abraham is his contemporary.   But it should be recognized that, on this point, the sentence was rather ambivalent.   In fact, of the two possible meanings of the sentence, the Jews retained that which ran up against less their obsessions.   For them, if   with the rigour of the rigours between Jesus   and Abraham, one   could see the other, it could not be a question of Abraham because, in their spirit, this one died and buried for a long time, and he will be never more question of him in the history. There   remains Jesus then.   He at least, it is alive.     But so that it could see Abraham, it would have been necessary that it is old of almost two thousand years. However, obviously, Jesus   was not fifty years old.

And, for the Jews, the great adventure of the thought stops there   As brings it back the evangelist, the Animal     quickly then made take again its rights with its   inevitable instincts of violence.

 


The weight of the thought.

If it is true that according to natural laws', confirmed by certain provisions metaphysics, it is not possible nor moreover desirable for a man to live 2000 years. Aren't all the tracks reflexion closed for as much?   Jesus could have lived of the time of Abraham and to reappear 2000 years later.   From the moment when the fact did not prove to be impossible, there remains field of the possible one.

One knows the opinion of the Jews on these " illusions metaphysics ". One knows also the rigidity of the dogmatism of official Christianity on the question. Is it necessary for as much avoiding thinking?

The day when one will need more to philosophize, one will know it inevitably. That would like to say that the man would have finally looped the logical loop, that having restored the unit of his conscience, it is from now on in perfect spiritual communion with the Absolute.   Obviously, one is not yet there. Until now, the most effective means available to the man to withdraw itself from darkness, it is the thought.

Speaking about the great adventure of the thought, the case of the Jews in this passage of the Gospels   is eloquent: with the first difficulty, they entêtent, give up the combat and camp on their positions. But one needs a little very to gain the war against ignorance. Perspicacity, but also of coolness, courage, audacity.   It is never necessary to be let drive back   by the first paradox that arises. To always show patience to explore all the possible and conceivable dialectical tracks. That which one has   tendency   to neglect, it is often that can make it possible to advance on the path of the Truth.

In short, there is no evil   to explore the track that   was released higher. It is enough to keep the head   placed well on the shoulders. The step quite simply consists in   joining together the evidence making it possible to confirm or to cancel the thesis according to which Jesus   and Abraham were contemporains. Tout of continuation, one will realize that one does not lay out of any testimony allowing to say that Jesus   lived time of Abraham and conversely.   In this case that to make?     One returns   to the box departure?     Not, it is necessary to proceed with method.   The absence of evidence corroborating such a possibility, handicaps the progression of the thought in the direction of a confirmation of the coexistence between Jesus   and Abraham. It does not make it possible as much to cancel the thesis.   The problem remains always posed.

Let us admit now that the thesis is despite everything founded. The question which is essential then is the following one: what   could occur so that one remained without report/ratio of this event. The two celebrities of Hebrew engineering which meet!   This   shock at the top should have made sparks and have left traces.

Eh well, which generally arrives, and probably in this precise case, it is that, confronted with   a given problem and exploring all the tracks of solution, one forgets most of the time to take into account the borderline cases. Indeed, the   most singular way, and finally simplest and most practical for Jesus   to have known Abraham, it is to have been Abraham himself.   He was necessary to think of it.

The assumption   and  the Truth.

Up to now, nothing makes it possible to say that one in the final analysis will lead to the Truth   and that one would not have to return   to the box departure.   At least, one   crossed several levels of comprehension compared to the Jews, for example. Better, one left this stage of the reflexion with a very plausible assumption.   What to make now?   What one always does in a similar case, i.e. to put the assumption   to the test of the facts.

Indeed, neither the opinion of the majority, neither the decrees of a given group, neither the tradition, nor the dogma are entitled to determine what is in conformity or not with the truth but the History alone. Then, does this idea tally with the logical entity that is supposed to represent the history of Israel?

 

To answer this   question validly supposes a perfect knowledge of this history. Before even coming to this assumption, we tried hard to dissect the memory of Israel and to pose the problem of the coherence and the rationality of the events having marked the existence of its people. Supporting us on logic, we even   pre-empted the conditions that would guarantee the veracity of the Revelation in comparison with the absolute. Namely, in particular that perfect God cannot disavow without any form of lawsuit the promise which it has Abraham and to preferably give the world has an unknown, even if this unknown said Son of God. What we needed, it was a historical proof of the perfect identification of God of Abraham   to the Absolute. Eh well, Jesus of Nazareth came to offer it to us on a plate.

Indeed, from the point of view of the dialectical history, the single way for Jesus of Nazareth of entering in possession of the world and officer as the Messiah is to be Abraham in person.   Because the world was not promised to no one else.   Unfortunately or fortunately, this elementary logic was missed up to now in the Judeo-Christian world. Jesus of Nazareth acknowledges in vain with his compatriots that he   is Abraham, all that they have to find has to retort it is: “ you is not fifty years old and you saw Abraham?   " the Christian   theologians for their part spent in two thousand years true treasure of imagination to try to justify a simple business like hello.

 

  

Of a stone, two blows.

As one saw, Christianity is not a new religion compared to the Judaism. All that affects one flashes back on the other.   The confusion maintained by the Jews concerning the Messiah, for a long time, blocked the Christians in their advance towards the Truth. Now that the central problems of the history of Israel   were elucidated, the Christian mystery disappears as by enchantment.

This same   theory that is not any more one now, not only rectifies the error of the official Judaism but also comes to save Christianity in extremis catastrophe.   Indeed, if Jesus   is not Abraham, the heir appointed to the world, the Christian religion is reduced to a simple imposture. It is almost a miracle that none of its detractors never noticed it. But, with the truth, there is not miracle in history.

Indeed, if somebody is enough gifted to determine in margin of the general   opinion that as from the moment when Jesus of Nazareth is not itself the holder of the promises, Christianity becomes a religion with the glory of the absurdity, he could very well with arriving a little in good faith until the absolute   truth. However, not all arrives at everyone as by chance. There is what is called in history logics of loop, where the same causes produce the same effects   and the same effects reproduce the same causes.

For better understanding of the situation, let us consider that it is possible to practice a cut in the logical loop without losing sight of the fact that the history is not an open play determined by the human will but a long step of recollection and awakening. That amounts in practice   considering that before Jesus of Nazareth, a pagan protestor, fond of rationalism, could address   to the Jews in the following way: " Your God   made   to your father a promise that he ever held up to now. If he does not recall him to the life to put him in possession of the promised land, he is a      looser.   Do not come especially to speak to me about your Messiah, because if your God decides to betray Abraham to preferably grant his favours to   an unknown, it would be the roof of the absurdity. That said, your God can still prove that he is really God. He is not too late for him to honour the promise that he made to your father, by establishing him as the uncontested Master of the world, the one the nations refers to as father or head.   In short, the Messiah like you say. "

Let us consider that the Israelites decided to be wise for once and to say to themselves: "  this pagan is right! Moreover, nothing in the Writings opposes this thesis. On the contrary, we do not have been since all this time successful in interpreting the will of God. If the Messiah is Abraham himself, that is great. Now, all is clear. Our God waits only until History meet some conditions  (PS 110 v. 1) that, for example, we, downward of Abraham, are if not as numerous as the sand of the sea but at least enough  to be able to control the world.  As soon as all the conditions are met, God will return the prophet Ely on earth (Malachie 4 v. 5-6) to make the last preparations.   Lastly, Abraham will return in his turn and O N will give the power, glory and the reign to him. And all the people, the nations, the men of all languages will serve it. Its domination is an eternal domination which will not pass. And its reign will never be destroyed (Daniel 7 v. 14). And us, his children, we will be the princes of the world.

If the Jews had that reading of history, no matter who could present himself and be made pass for Abraham.   From this moment, there would be no mean to check neither the authenticity of so-called Messiah nor the veracity of God of Israel compared to   the absolute. Thus, any truth   is not good   to reveal at   any time. In addition, the true Messiah must be able to recognize itself. He should not have to suppose that he is the Elected One of the Almighty.  The best way of eliminating any doubt in his spirit, it is to put it in front of an accomplished fact. Then, it   was decided that the first Israelite that would manage   to determine unambiguously that the will of God, it is that Abraham is the Messiah becomes himself   the Messiah.

A priori, the bet seemed rather risky. When one analyzes the events afterwards, the Messianic secret resembles rather   an open secret: the intentions of God with regard to Abraham appeared so obvious. Actually, the things appeared a little more vigorous than seemingly.   If no matter who can understand that the Messiah is Abraham, not everyone will be aware at the first blow of it. One remembers it; nearly two thousand years of procedure   was necessary before this elementary   truth does reach a human conscience. That known as, the complexity of the process of awakening   may be wanted by God or due to other factors, it come well into the prospect for the accomplished fact. The test appeared so difficult that the first Israelite who would succeed in resolving it, would  impose himself  automatically like the most intelligent man and the more righteous man of Israel since 2000 years   It would become   then  logically the natural leader of his  people. Moreover, when one manages   to match his thought with the divine thought, it is that the ceiling was touched.   Consequently, it will be difficult to someone else   to better do.   Thus, the Messiah should be the mentioned Israelite.   However,  as the test aimed at   showing it, the Messiah can be only Abraham himself.   Then that Israelite would become ipso facto Abraham.   But there is a problem: one does not become Abraham.   One is he or one is not he. What that means?     That means that there was only Abraham himself   that could make a success of this test.

  

Nothing was thus left randomly. Since that one is stuck in this kind of gears, one does not come out of there. That explains largely why Jesus   de Nazareth was so sure of his truth. For all the others that did not have the chance to have been Abraham, the truth   must be the subject of a revelation. Today, those who will take the most time   to adapt to   this revelation will undoubtedly be the Christians themselves.   Because the Truth will oblige them   to re-examine certain designs anchored since centuries.   Holding account of so, we tried to level the paths while starting with radiography of the commonly allowed doctrines.   With the risk to disturb, we tried   to highlight the incredible errors and the gap that it comprised. The situation was so serious from a logical point of view, that only faith could move this mountain of inconsistencies from one century to   another.   At this time, we believed to have to put all those who still claim revelation of Jesus of Nazareth in guard against any solution of facility that would in particular consist in   cutting the Christianity of its historical roots to make of it a kind of religion with   mysteries. During preceding chapters, we preferably proposed to them to put the cards on the table and to patiently track the major causes of these inconsistencies until in the Judaism. One remembers certainly it, to illustrate the terrible contradiction that crosses the Christian religion, we quoted this famous verse of Paul in his epistle in Gelatos:

 


If you belong to Christ, you are the descent of Abraham, heirs according to the promise. (Galates 3 v. 29)

By this small sentence, and without suspecting it probably, Paul put Christianity the back at the wall. These words can mean its triumph as well as its ruin; all depends on the prospect where one places oneself.

Considering Paul’s situation, we saw how, pushed by the spirit of God, the latter had begun an adventure of which he did not understand completely holding them and the outcomes. However, as a Jew, he had kept a certain notion of the history. In this case, the least that it could do is trying to reconcile its new faith with historical logic. But, incompetent to find himself in the mazes of the dialectical history, it had this unhappy reaction which cost so much the Jews and which consists in shorting-circuit a problem to come directly to the conclusion. If the conclusion of the Judea-Christian adventure is not any doubt – by the way, Paul remarkably stated it -- what interests the conscience, it is precisely the dialectical step. Considered by much as the greatest genius of Christianity, Paul however eluded it. What about common Christians then? The situation of the multitude appears all the more critical since this notion of the history found at Paul and the first Judeo-Christians had been attenuated much with time due to a certain dogmatism. And, on top, one ended up forgetting essence. But that the Christian of today in A a clear conscience or not, his final objective, as recalled by Paul, it is to have his share in the heritage of Abraham. Now, the question is the following one: To arrive for this purpose, couldn't one find better than mere intermediary in whoto trust completely? And then, under the terms of what, Jesus of Nazareth can it make of no matter whom a descendant of Abraham? More serious still: why would he need to make of his disciples  children of Abraham? Isn't he the Son of God and God himself? Moment when it recognized you like one as of his, all was to be regulated! Eh well, drive out the naturalness, it returns promptly. Paul himself did not know to avoid historical logic although it seems to go against L

 

Paths of eternity.

Throughout this study, we insisted much on Abraham. It is necessary to say, without wanting to go into the details of the total awakening of Jesus   de Nazareth, that the history of Abraham primarily was used to him as reference.     From the moment when it became aware that it played in time the role of the ancestor of the elected people, the question was not there any more. It should be remembered that in the beginning the Galilean Prophet was a genius that sought   to understand the history   of its country. And a beautiful day, it ended up looping the logical loop.   Many voyant in Israel did not have this chance.   The communication had been done in   a one-way process.   We saw previously how Jean Baptist and Paul aloud proclaimed     the truth without same suspecting it.   Jesus, he, managed   to control unconscious dimension his being.   It succeeded in   " putting the hand " on the God who spoke and acted at the bottom of him. Roughly speaking, it was seen how.   Having reached the stage of the perfect thought, it was confused intellectually with God. From this moment, it was enough to a simple catch, the history of Abraham, for example, and the proof of its own immortality that it brings, so that he covers the memory and the conscience of his divine nature.

There is still another way of considering the situation. Jesus of Nazareth, according to any probability, was the only case where creative energy present at   various amounts at any individual proved be enough powerful to go up until   its source.     From this moment, one imagines easily what had to occur. There thus was a phenomenon of loop, where there is neither beginning no more nor end   In other words, by unifying its conscious and its unconscious, it overcame the notion of time and space.   He is theoretically in eternity. That explains why it could say to the Jews: Before Abraham was, I am.

In fact, there is not mystery in Christianity. It is pure logic .  Now, everyone can understand how Jesus of Nazareth ended up realizing not that he was specifically a new demonstration of Abraham, but   especially   the Verb eternal of God who, first once, incarné himself in the person of Abraham to initiate the history and which will have to intervene time as many there than it will be necessary to rectify   the shooting and in the final analysis to put a term at it. Obviously, each time  , it will have to change marital status. In his time, Jesus knew all that. That also implies that in spite of all the revelations which were made here, the history is far from to have exhausted its capital of secrecies.

 

So that the doubt is not any more.

For those who would still have the slightest doubt or the least difficulty of assimilation concerning   the fact that Jesus of Nazareth had full and whole conscience to have been Abraham in time, we will proceed to an exercise that, in any event, deserved its place in this study.   We will leave this famous verse the Gospel of Jean of the mouth of Jesus   to put it in an impersonal context   with all the variations and possible meanings of the sentence to see what that gives.

Abraham, the father of the Jews, rejoiced to see the day of Jesus, it saw it and it was transported of joy.

Abraham, the father of the Jews, rejoiced to see the day of the birth of Jesus, it saw it and it was transported of joy.

Abraham, the father of the Jews, rejoiced to see the day of the advent of Jesus, it saw it and it was transported of joy.

Abraham, the father of the Jews, rejoiced to see the day that Jesus saw, it saw it   and it was transported of joy.
                                                                         
Abraham, the father of the Jews, rejoiced to see the time of Jesus, it saw it and it was transported of joy.

Abraham, the father of the Jews, rejoiced to see the time of Jesus, it saw it and it was transported of joy.

Abraham, the father of the Jews, exulta   to the thought which it reappears in the person of Jesus, that occurred and it was transported of joy.

 


Here, one notices very well that it can exist     variations only on the topic " to be born " and, there still, the nuances are thin.   As for the other sentence members, they imply in an indisputable   way the physical   and emotional presence of Abraham at   two different periods of history.   According to the scenario assembled by Jesus, it was like if, from the time of Abraham, one would have taught him that it would see the time of Pontius Pilate and Tiber.   We know, today, that it is not a question of a simple assembly on behalf of Jesus.   As we showed at the beginning of this work, God   really made it clear to  Abraham that he would see a new day. In its time, did Abraham understand it?   Yes, somehow.   But it is only when it returned in the person of Jesus of Nazareth that he ended up measuring all the range of the promises that were made to him.

 

Ultimate interpretation.

There it had required to make all this gymnastics to find the meaning of these words: Abraham your father, rejoiced to see my day, he saw it and he was glad "?   Not really.

Why the majority of people don't understand at the first blow? Because that was not given to them?   Without any doubt. But there are also other factors that come into play. It is known, for example, that comprehension is a business of association of ideas.   To be able to associate these ideas, it is necessary to have them in mind.  

As one saw for the Jews, much of people are always stuck in mental diagrams that prevent them from finding the combination gaining.   Today still, about all the Christian confessions reject the doctrines of the metempsychosis categorically. Point of the dialectical history, it is not an absolute error since the revelation could be only progressive.   But the fact is that Jesus   himself   formally recognized Jean Baptist like a new demonstration of Élie.   It is precisely because the majority of the people recognizing itself as Christian are unaware of the bases metaphysics of their religion which they have as much evil     to appear the return of Jesus.   Some even claim   that the Kingdom of God is already on ground and than the return of Jesus   will be simply a mystical event.   Not, Jesus will return as it had come.   Moreover, it was not the first time that it intervened in the history, as opposed to what teach much. To also notice that Jesus   was by no means worried to find his marks with his ultimate advent.   It did not leave any note on the observations which it made there is two thousand   years   A   its return, it will be as brilliant as front, it will have   to only start again.

According to historians', of the four Gospels, that of Jean would be latest. Thus, in person, Jesus   could not have directed his writing. Moreover, the disciple who   brought back the scene   to which one is referred did not include/understand nothing there itself, which proves, if it of it were necessary, its authenticity. In any case, its testimony appears very useful today.   It gives a report on the one of the rare occasions where Jesus expressed himself directly on this relationship with Abraham.   However, to mislead the vigilance of the Jews which in any event   would not believe it, it had recourse to   a literary artifice brilliant but altogether banal.   Instead of speaking about its relationship with Abraham, it speaks about the reports/ratios of Abraham with him   In other words, instead of taking the active role, which should have returned to him in the situation in question, it leaves it in   Abraham, being confined in the passive role.   To be even clearer, instead of saying the cat eats the mouse, it says the mouse is eaten by the cat.   And if one tried to reverse the sentence in the normal direction, what that would give?

Something of this kind: I am Abraham, your father.   I would not have believed that I would see this day.   However, here I am.   Then, useless to describe you my joy.

 

The time of the interrogations.

One knows already the music: the history is not remade.   All the same, it is interrogations   which one cannot prevent oneself from raising. If, for example, Jesus   had shown himself also direct in front of the Jews would have arranged its case near them?

Nothing is less sure.   In fact, it took the risk well to reveal the Messianic secrecy.   And the Jews included/understood well what he meant.   They did not want to believe it quite simply. Like known as the prophet: They had eyes not to see, ears not to hear, an intelligence not to understand.   Jesus has in vain given them a clue, like one says,  indicating that he preexisted to   Abraham, anything made there.

 

Two thousand years later.

To suppose now that Jesus   returns two thousand years after by supporting this same truth   openly, would he meet more success?

In two thousand years, the men hardly became more intelligent, it is the least which one can say.   What   changed in fact, they are the circumstances.

Normally, the history should and been able have stopped   starting from the total awakening of Jesus   de Nazareth. The texts which we have at   our disposal to analyze the history of Israel were practically the same ones as two thousand years ago. Thus, Jesus   could have developed an argumentation even more solid than that which supports this study. Because we limited ourselves to   a fast overflight of the situation, leaving voluntarily other aspects of the question in reserve.   It is true that the Jews were of a bad notorious faith; however, they were not completely stripped of common sense. On several occasions, Jesus   had succeeded in   confusing them with his logic. By developing it until the end, couldn't it have confused them completely and have rejoined them with   its cause?   Who knows?     Where the miracles   failed, the dialectical one could have succeeded very well.   But   Jesus   had taken care not to engage on this way because its mission did not consist in being made pass for the Messiah, but to precisely cut through in.liaison.with the History a dialectical path allowing the remainder of humanity to reach his subconscious and to know the Truth.

Sometimes, one asks for why the history is it also litigious, what good is all these turnings and this long waiting. It is that it is not easy to restore the unit of the human conscience. When one analyzes the events afterwards, one could wonder for example how is made it that Abraham did not include/understand a first blow that the taking possession of the ground promised by its God is not possible without people to control it.   Consequently, the Promise will be carried out only after many generations. As for him, it should be plunged in a cosmic sleep. At the convenient period, it would awake almost like ordinary sleep. In short, it should have provided in its time that it would not die. In practice, it could not it more than the Jews of the time of Jesus. According to the plan of the history and requirements' of the unification of the conscience, the elected people will have to pass by the same dialectical process followed by Abraham. I.e., it also will enter in cosmic sleep to awake a little later in the history. Like Jesus, it will then start to raise questions. Probably, in a way or of another, the cosmic conscience will finish emerging in its centre. In short, of many conditions must be joined together before does not come final safety from humanity.

The question that arises now is the following one: are two to it thousand years later?

On this question, there is at least a certainty.   It is based on observation. The cycle of Israel, as it already is known, lasted nearly 2000 years.   One period similar is amply sufficient   with the history to recreate the conditions of a new total awakening. This new awakening will project a new light on the mental experiment of Jesus of Nazareth and to make it possible to restore all the truth on what really occurred two thousand years ago. A posteriori, that can seem easy to put forth the assumption that Jesus was probably aware to have been Abraham, to go to check it in the New Will and to note then with facility and which accuracy the puzzle of the history is positioned back.   Actually, it was necessary to envisage a diary of at least two thousand years to achieve this goal. One cannot thus speak about a small matter.

In one of the preceding chapters, we studied in a very   theoretical way the supposed process of   the return.   There are no really mysteries on this subject since the events of last times were predicted a long time   in advance with force details. Although the mistakes on this subject are legion, null is judicious to only be unaware of for example, in the eschatology judéo-Christian woman, the elected people must play a central role in the advent of the Kingdom of heaven. Obviously, when the Writing speaks about elected people, it cannot be a question of a specific religious community as it sometimes is heard, even less of the whole of Christendom but of a true nation which would resemble like two water   drops Israel, with a defined territory, political institutions and especially with a very characteristic history and problems. It is too often forgotten, Christianity   following the example Judaism is a religion of the history.   The religious institutions as such cannot intervene there directly. It will be thus the mission of the people elected to recreate the conditions essential to the final return of the Messiah (Matthieu 21 v. 43).

But, would say one, up to now one   did not see the shade of the elected people. And it is necessary time before is not constituted a nation. And even more before it did not live, that it did not develop a thought and that it did not give birth to an engineering able to complete it.   If one sticks to appearances, the end of the world is not for tomorrow.

For the moment, we will take care well not to evoke this second phase of the history of the hello.   All that one can say on this subject, it is that it will not be included/understood better than the history of Israel.   Some must until now believe that it is still to come. But it may be that it already took place.   One     never knows, now, the majority of biblical prophecies concerning the end of time are perhaps already accomplished without nobody realizing there.   If such is the case, you let us please believe that it will remain in this world a little time to re-examine the topicality as of the these ten last years in particular and history in general   in the light of biblical prophecies and of the last developments of the situation and to have an idea of its immediate future. Those who have an intelligence to understand will certainly understand.