Of a Roman Christ and the Prophecy of Isaiah. Or, the Theology of the Divine Emperor.

 

I am the first here to try this hard task, so to speak, to progress on this deserted way where blows the wind of destruction, on this tormented road encircled by the night, that formerly the Evangelists themselves followed, but of which the trace was lost. It was not possible for me to find somebody who had already followed before me this aspect of the Scriptures, although I know in addition that the Patriarchs, Popes, the Saint Fathers and some bishops have known it for a long time. But they regarded the thing as dangerous to say, likely to weaken the faith of believers and like worrying to the simple minds. Also only did they murmur the suave content of it, and they never published this textual tradition, this way, resulting "From the origins of Christianity".
Numerous are the pieces of evidence for this aspect of the Writing, and each one, in its own manner, makes us discover the "true" account of Christic times. Like torches raised right in front of the way, they clarify the darkness which covers the centuries spent, and their gleams reveal, on the dilapidated walls of the old world, a fresco covered by the dust of time. One must there almost rub the torches to distinguish the features of Christ, so much the picture grew blurred. He is there depicted with the aspect of an ancient statue, made of an old marble, eroded by the storms of the different ages...
Eusebius of Caesarea declared as for the drafting of his Ecclesiastical History: "I will choose among the things which are reported here and there; as in spiritual meadows, I will gather the useful passages from the old writers; I will try to make a body of this account of forgotten times". It will be the same in these lines:
But the words which I will pronounce are as the echo of a time of which we do not have anymore the right to think that it was even a day; they resound as if it had been given to them to cross the centuries in fraud, undercover, and their murmur falls into your ears and makes some embarrassments to you, as if you had paid attention to a prohibited and awkward thing. They are only stolen words, come from far away, from the origins of Christianity, and should never have reached you. Because some say indeed that one should not raise the veil of so many old mysteries and that it is advisable to leave in dust the ancient Christ, the Roman. For heaven’s sake, if my matter gives you sourness, plug your ears and go away! But let still see for a time and this only time, who was really Christ, so that one can say: "they have seen him, and they haven’t recognized him". In this respect you will have all satisfactions, for these words fall into deaf ears.

However as I said, the words which I will pronounce are stolen words, they do not belong to me, because the epoch and the men who saw them surge have died a long time ago. Thus, I will only bear testimony of these words, and will give them back to Saint Augustine and to the other Fathers of the Church who are their authors. These men will speak by my mouth, and I will give them for this only moment, a foot in this world:

Eusebius of Caesarea declares in his Apostolic history: "the nature of Christ is double; one resembles the head of the body and by it, He is recognized God; the other is comparable with the feet, because by it, he arrayed himself with the appearance of a man like us." Jesus-Christ thus gathers in him two natures, one human, and it is the body, the other Divine, and it is the spirit. And the bread, and the wine at the time of the Last Supper represented this mystery of the union of two natures. It is the Roman law which states indeed that "one witness is worth no witness". Consequently, since one needs two witnesses to bring the proof of anything, and to make to some extent a bright demonstration, God Christ could only justify himself by gathering in him two natures. These two natures were thus made the image of two distinct people who bear testimony for each other. It is for this reason that the word of the old writing (Old Testament) only finds satisfaction in the achievement of the New Testament. Because it was necessary that the Scriptures speak with each other in the same way. "One witness is worth no witness", thus means that all that is subjective does not give any proof to its own vision of things, so that consequently one cannot give credence to it. This principle applies to all things; because how would you know that a magnet is a magnet, if it did not attract its opposite? How would you know that fire burns, if water did not refresh? How would know that the top is height, if you did not know that from there you could fall lower and downwards? You have two eyes, you walk on two legs, then thus how come you believe that subjectivity is a proof? It makes you lame, asymmetrical, so that you fall to each step and that your testimony is worth null! Conversely, objectivity is the proof by two of the existence of a thing; it brings a universal and perfect justification to any claim. The son of God could thus only gather in him two natures in order to be without any doubt, His own judge, His justification! In the same way does the Writing express itself only in parabolas or by mysteries, as long as one has not compared it with itself. If you read the Gospel of Mark or Matthew alone, you will only find there one part of the truth, it is a subjective vision of the life, death, resurrection of the Messiah. So that as a magnet that you would have without any other thing and of which you would not know the utility, without even knowing how to name it, you cannot know what Christ really says, and what he is, not making any distinction between what he says to be and not to be. From there do these many "inconsistencies" between the Evangelists come, and which are taken for errors. They are made on purpose, so that one can see the objective Truth there. It is necessary to compare the text with itself in order to distinguish in it the face of the Messiah.

How do you believe that God says in his Apocalypse that he is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end of all things? This is that he makes Himself Judge and accused, witness of Himself! He perceives all things indeed. Moreover, you know this formula addressed to Constantine: "It is by this sign that you will overcome!" And this sign of the Cross refers to the Evangelists, who are four. It is necessary to achieve the sign on the Gospels, to place John on Mark, Luke on Matthew, finally the New Testament on the Old one, so that the objective truth appears. So that the texts are put two by two like witnesses. Without that your reading of the sacred Writings is subjective and does not have any proof! From there comes the fact that you are unaware that Jesus is Roman. Saint Augustine was informed of this great mystery, also wrote he: "Of the comparison of the Gospels". This work tells us about the "contradictions" of the texts, and how they should be agreed with one another so as to better understand them and to see why their superposition gives, apart of the solution to many questions, another vision of Christ and his life. Saint Augustine spoke however in parabolas, and if he knew what we know ourselves and which relates to Roman Christ, he never pronounced it openly, at most murmured it he.
Thus it is advisable to clarify the remarks of this Father of the Church, and to make of his murmur a clear word, by giving once and for all a precise idea of the writings. The proof of the Roman nature of Christ will be provided here by THREE SUCCESSIVE STACKINGS of comparisons, which, as we will see, are irrefutable:
Catholic liturgy from the V th century Breviary in Rome:
At the IV th week Monday of Lent, the epistle of the day tells us of this famous judgment of Solomon. One of the two women who claim for his justice, having choked her child while sleeping, is jealous of her rival whose son is alive:
Hebraic Canon, I Kings, III, 16-28. Septuagint Canon, III Kings, III, 16-28:
16, "Then two women of weak virtue, came towards the King, and went in front of him." 17, "And one of these women, said; Alas! my Lord, we remained, this woman and me, in the same house, and I gave birth in her house"18,"the third day after my childbirth, this woman also gave birth, and we were together; there was no stranger with us in this house, we were there only us two" 19, "But, the son of this woman died during the night, because she had lain down on him" 20, "But she got up at midnight, and she took my son, that I held close to me, while your maidservant was sleeping, and she laid him down on her womb, and she laid down her dead son on my womb." Vulgate, continuation: "When I got up in the morning to nurse my son, I saw that he was dead; and, observing him with more attention at daylight, I recognized that he was not mine, the one whom I had given birth to. The other woman answered her; what you say is not true; but hers is the son who died, and mine the one who is alive (...) Solomon, King, added: Bring to me a sword (...) He then said to his guards: Cut in two this child who is alive, and give one half to the one, and one half to the other. Then the woman whose son was alive said to the King: Lord, give her, I beg you, the child who is alive, and do not kill him (...) The King then pronounced this sentence: Give to this one the child who is alive, and that he is not killed; because it is her who is the mother."

FIRST BASE OF THE PROOF THAT JESUS IS ROMAN

While following the thought of St Augustine, St Gregory the Great and St John Chrysostom, it is appropriate to make a distinction between these two women and to notice their significance "They are like the figure for one of the Synagogue, the Jews, for the other of Rome and of the Gentility". One chokes her child during her sleep, and "is made at the image of the Synagogue" whose chiefs did not want that the old mysteries be revealed to the world. They are shown here as having symbolically choked the son of God, because this last wanted to break the seal of Biblical secrets, and to personify in him alone what had been variously prefigured by the Prophets of the Old Covenant. "This woman is jealous of Rome, of which the other woman is the image". But, and let us notice it, these two women both live in the same residence and share the same shelter, according to their words: "we remained, this woman and me, in the same house". By stressing that these two women, the Synagogue and Rome, lived jointly under a similar roof, the Fathers of the Church thus affirmed what I previously said: "Cham is cursed by Noah, while Shem (the Jews, Semites) and Japhet (Romans), are blessed and the promise is given to them! Consequently, Japhet (Romans) is put aside, and remains in the tents of Shem (Jews)." The Writing here tallies marvellously with itself and declares us in the same way, that before the schism of the Ten tribes, the Romans lived "under the tent", "in the same residence as the Jews in Jerusalem." But we are here at the time of Solomon and the Schism, the separation, is not accomplished yet. It is thus right that the Writing stresses that these two women stayed in the same house, because these two peoples had a common origin and remained together since the blessing of Noah.
"I gave birth in her house" means, according to St Augustine, that this woman, "i.e. Rome and the Church", gave birth to the son of God, Christ, "that he is their son" and of Roman blood, and that in memory of the time when the Romans lived under the roof of the Jews, Jesus the Roman was like born in Judaea, although being Roman; born in the same residence as the one which sheltered his people before the Schism, the separation of the ten tribes. (And the Ten Roman tribes separated from the Jews under Jeroboam cf.: "Of the origins of Christianity, Issac ben Jacob") But "the third day", after the other woman, the Synagogue had given birth, the son of this last woman died during the night, because she had lain down on him" Then the Synagogue, the woman whose son was dead, took the son of the other woman, of the Roman one, to put him close to her and to appropriate him and, "while the Roman woman was sleeping", she laid down her dead son in the place of the child whom she had taken." So that it is thought that Rome has not given birth to Christ, and that being born from the Synagogue, he is from the Synagogue. But it is a substitution, because the son who is thought of as the one of the Synagogue has in fact been born by the Church and the Roman woman.

The other woman, who is the figure of the Church and Rome, spoke again: "When I got up in the morning to nurse my son, I saw that he was dead; and, observing him with more attention at daylight, I recognized that he was not mine"; then she goes in front of the King (Solomon) and claims for his judgement so that the birth of her son, which is not dead, on the contrary to the one of the Synagogue, is attributed to her. And the King answered: "Bring to me a sword (...) He says then to his guards: Cut in two this child who is alive, and give one half to the one, and one half to the other." The Roman woman thus claims for the restitution of her son, but King Solomon suggests that he be cut in two, for this son, being the son of God, gave a new Covenant to his people, a New Testament; and from now on he will be like cut in two, on one side the Old Testament towards the Synagogue, on the other the New one, towards Rome.

But the Roman woman, the Church, claims more than that, she wishes she obtained justification as for her motherhood, and that her son be given back to her. However, seeing that he "will be killed" by the guards of the King, she gives up her claim, her motherhood to save the fruit of her entrails: "Lord, give him, I beg you, the child who is alive, and do not kill him." Thus to snatch her child from the jaws of death, she gives up any hope to see herself one day recognized as Mother of Christ. Rome itself confesses not to be mother of Christ. Why is it so? Because Rome wants that Christ survives it, survives its political power, and for this reason confesses not to have given birth to Christianity, nor to Jesus. Consequently, it will appear to have accepted a religion foreign to itself, and the people will forget that its God was Roman and that the Romans themselves had a common origin with the Jews.
Some will say to me with a vacuous smile, that if the woman whose son is alive is indeed Rome, and that the woman whose son has died is effectively the Synagogue and the Jews, nobody can know if the substituted son figures Christ? Why such a bad faith? If I chose this epistle, it is precisely to prevent such errors: For it is written: "the third day after my childbirth, this woman also gave birth", [...] "But, the son of this woman died during the night, for she had lain down on him" (Roman Breviary of the V th century) the epistle of this Monday of the IV th week of Lent is added to the Gospel of the day so it is known what means: "the son of the Synagogue was born, then died the third day, after the Roman woman had given birth." The wisdom of this judgment of Solomon is here admired by the entire universe, because it represents the one of the real Solomon. However Solomon had built a temple, and Jesus speaking about his own body throws down this challenge to the Jews: "Destroy this temple, I will rebuild it in three days." He resurrected indeed the third day, after his death [to “destroy” means here to choke]
Gospel of the day: Roman breviary of the Vth century, Continuation of the Holy Gospel according to Saint John (St John II, 13-25): "Jesus said: Destroy this temple and in three days I will rebuild it [... ] But he spoke about the temple of his body."
It is because the Son of the Synagogue died on the third day, and was substituted for the living Son of the Roman woman on this same third day, and that the judge of this case is King Solomon, that Jesus said in this Gospel: "destroy this temple (of Solomon) and in three days (the third day) I will rebuild it” (I will be substituted in place of the dead son, to replace him by myself). "But he spoke about the temple of its body", and indeed in this judgment of Solomon, the Dead Son is a dead body, which sees itself being replaced by a Living body, a Roman, that of Jesus.

SECOND BASE OF THE PROOF THAT JESUS IS ROMAN

Why did this prefiguration of a Roman Messiah happen under Solomon, and why is this King in this matter the only judge?
Solomon is the last KING of ISRAEL, i.e. the last to reign over the twelve tribes, Judah, Benjamin, and the Ten tribes of Ephraim. And the twelve tribes stem from Jacob; they form the Hebrew people in its Entirety. But it has been given to us to see in "Origins of Christianity", that Ephraim was no other than the Roman and Greek nation. Because according to the reasoning of the Fathers of the Church, since Japhet was at the time of Noah the image of the Roman People, and that he stayed in the Jewish Nation (under the tents of Shem, Ancestor of the Jews), it is very right to conclude that he was an integral part of the tribes of David. The two peoples, Jew and Roman, were thus brought together under the authority of David then Solomon. However it is by the fault of the latter King, and because of his son Roboam, that a schism occurred, the one of the Ten tribes. In the book of Kings, God inveighs in a great number of times against David then Solomon, and threatens to withdraw the people from them, for having concluded alliances with foreign women. It is by his son, that Solomon sees the Prophecy of this Schism being carried out: Roboam declares to the people that he will punish them with scorpions, and shows himself more terrible than any other descendant of David. The Ten tribes then refuse to be subjected to his authority; they are the Nations of Ephraim, these which are Roman. Consequently, in Judaea will only remain Judah and Benjamin, the tribes which will constitute the Jewish People. But the kingdom of Jerusalem loses its name of Israel and becomes Judaea. On the contrary does the kingdom of the Ten exiled tribes take the name of Israel. The Hebraic Nation, divided into two peoples, one the Romans and Greeks, the other the Jews, will be distributed between two kingdoms which will no longer know each other. And it should be recognized that no Hebrew King will reign over the twelve tribes anymore, until the advent of the Messiah. It is about this fact that the Scripture complains: that the two peoples do not reconcile themselves, and that they do not have a same King in Israel! And as it is David, then Solomon in whom the Schism is being planned, and in whom it finds its origin, it is exactly as right to consider that the Scripture is greatly right to start the songs on the Prophesied arrival of the future Messiah, during the same time. The Bible claims, just as God, the advent of a new King able to bring together the two peoples, the Jews and the Romans. Solomon thus judges these two women, of which one is Roman and the other Jewish. He Prophesies himself on his guilt in the origin of the Schism, and on the event which will repair it, a very long time afterwards: The arrival of the Roman Messiah. It was necessary that a King came from the Nation of Ephraim, the Roman Nation, so that the two peoples are again united. Solomon declares all things considered: "I have sinned largely, and from my son will come the Schism, then I prophesy, so that it is known that a King-God will come, that he will emerge from Ephraim, but that he will be known as Jew, so that it is known that two natures are in him: One Jewish, and it is the appearance of the Messiah, the other Roman, and it is his true nature"
Was Solomon right to Prophesy on the arrival of the Messiah by regarding him as the future King-God, the only one able to join together the two nations? Certainly, because the inscription carried to the top of His cross declares: "Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews" and this inscription was written in three languages (Latin, Greek and Hebrew), so that it can be read: Jesus King of the Jews, Jesus King of the Romans, Jesus King of the Greeks!
St Augustine adds besides on this subject in his “Treaty of the Gospel according to St John”: “isn’t it a secret voice which made resound at the bottom of Pilates’ heart, what had been announced in advance such a long time ago in the Psalms: "do not change the inscription of the title". But is Jesus the King of the sole Jews? Isn't he also the King of the Romans and the Greeks? O glorious inscription; he is above all King of the Romans! He was established King on his mountain of Zion, but that did not only let suppose that he was a King of the Jews, but also of the Romans”. What words shall I add after these of St Augustine!
And if you look at what I wrote into these lines, you will see the Truth there, because nothing of what I have exposed contradicts, nothing is obscure. But what I have said clarifies the Scriptures with a very great constancy, and without any variation. Can you only contradict me? And contradict St Augustine and all the Fathers of the Church? I did not ground my demonstration in apocryphal books, nor in vain divagations. I on the contrary rested on the writings recognized as right, without ever trying to look at a part of the Biblical text without taking the other into account. But you, who do not believe this text, on what will your arguments be strengthened? On straw and wet clay, in a word, on soft bricks which did not pass through fire! JUDGMENT OF SOLOMON - END.

At this point in time you say: Did the Bible lie to us; it does not speak in truth?
Not, the Scripture did not mislead you, but you read it badly, with a very human glance, without understanding that it is necessary to compare the texts with each other and to look at them in the same way that God contemplates you: You have a body and a spirit, then why don't you understand that the Jews and the Romans are the two parts of a same whole? Any Roman is Jew by his body, and any Jew is Roman by his spirit! It is thus right that Jesus is called in the Scripture Jew, because being Roman, he is Jew by his appearance, but Roman by his birth of God. No matter, don’t you be frightened, since the Jews and the Romans have the same origin; they are both Hebrews, and Jesus, being Hebrew, gathers in him two natures, one Roman, the other Jewish!

THIRD BASE OF THE PROOF THAT JESUS IS ROMAN

The Prophet Isaiah, who is the first in the Canonical order of the Prophets, can in the same way also be called in every aspect the first of all. His royal birth, his inimitable and marvellous eloquence, probably Divine, rendered him a completely surprising man. He speaks with great clearness about Jesus-Christ, so much, that of him it was always reported (Saint Jerome) that he was more an Evangelist than a Prophet. He saw the glory of God who was sitting on a high throne, and contemplated His mysteries without being blinded by them. The Fathers qualify him a very "curious observer of all Divine sciences", and its Prophecies have so much a character of force and greatness, which one is not astonished that he has, by this authority, revealed of so powerful mysteries about the origins of Christ. He had to some extent sufficient legitimacy to the eyes of God, so that he could be allowed to reveal so many secrets, without one being able not to believe them. He knows the Saviour, Christ, as if he had been given to see Him standing up in front of him. For the Lord called him, so that he "shouts in the desert, and makes His way straight". And Isaiah walks to some extent in the steps of John the Baptist, and is made the figure of the precursor, of the one who bears testimony and bears testimony himself; because he already sees the very places where Christ must begin His predications.
He has represented with a great clearness the "obscure birth" of Christ, his judgment, his sufferings, his death, so much that one does not know whether his writing is rather an account made according to the event, or a Prophecy.

Thus, of an obscure birth, he had predicted that the Divine power would surge: "A child, he says, will be born from the cut trunk of Jesses, and a stem will grow out of his root (...) At this time, the child of Jesses will be exposed like a standard to the eyes of the nations, and they will come to offer their prayers to him, and his sepulchre will be glorious".
On the Genealogical aspect; Isaiah declares that the Messiah will be born from the trunk of Jesses, but he adds in addition that this trunk is cut, and cannot give birth to the line of God made man. How can it be so? And as St Augustine says, there are here "some great mysteries". But by forcing our attention, we can there see another significance: The Genealogy of the Kings of Israel is as follows: God gave to Abraham for son Isaac, and from this last were born the following, Jacob, then, Juda, then, Phares, then, Esrom, then, Aram, then, Aminadab, then Naasson, then, Salmon, then, Booz, then, Obed, then, JESSES, [CUT] then, DAVID, then, [CUT] SOLOMON, then, [CUT] ROBOAM, then, ABDIAS.
The Genealogy of Jesus should thus have followed the continuation of the generations’ sequence! But it is not so according to Isaiah, and this last adds that the Messiah, coming from the trunk of Jesses, will not therefore be included in the branches, the descent. The trunk IS CUT here! Why thus? There is a simple answer to this question: the Cut trunk of Jesses represents, by a cutting of this genealogy, the Schism of the Ten tribes, and the separation of the Romans from the Jews! If the Romans indeed had a common origin with the Jews, and that the Messiah is Roman, it is very right that the genealogical trunk is the same one! But it is "cut" below Jesses, because the Schism is being planned in David then in Solomon, and is accomplished in Roboam, son of this last king. Isaiah had thus seen with a great wisdom the obscure origin of the future Messiah; and if Jesus were going to appear to the eyes of the world as stemming from the Jewish People, this great Prophet did not have a doubt that he was actually Roman. He says indeed: "And a child will be born from the root!" so that it is known that it was the side branch of the genealogy which would give birth to the Messiah. So indeed if the trunk is cut in Jesses, child-God cannot be born from the line of Roboam, nor from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin; and if on the contrary he is born from the root, he is thus born from the other branch, the one of Ephraim which is the Roman people, precisely at the time of Jesses and David!
Terrible are these words, for they are like the walls of the house of David!

Isaac Ben Jacob