When Jesus and Shri Mataji talk about God Almighty you ... (know billions have been easy prey to the error of false gods, sacrifices, idols and preachers)

[Guest guest]

>

> Shri Mataji: " He (Jesus) was the Holiest of the Holy. You accept

> that position. "

>

> , " jagbir singh "

> <adishakti_org@> wrote:

>

> Note: When Jesus and Shri Mataji talk about God Almighty you have

> to give up all your mental concepts and conditionings about the

> Creator.

>

> One should realize that Jesus spoke about the Creator with far more

> authority, power and depth than Abraham, Moses and Prophet Muhammad.

> Even more significant is the fact that Jesus already existed eons

> before Abraham, Moses and Prophet Muhammad, and declared that

> without any fear: " Before Abraham was, I Am " . John 8:58-59 says

> explicitly that Jews took up stones to cast on Jesus when the

> latter said that " before Abraham was, I am " , despite never claiming

> to be God Almighty. The Comforter gives evidence to support Jesus'

> extraordinary claim, and counsels us that He was in fact speaking

> the truth:

>

 

Sacrifice and the Life of the Spirit – Chapter Three

 

(P.59) The author of the 'Gospel of Judas' draws his wild caricature

of " the twelve " as priests at the altar, leading multitudes astray

and offering human sacrifice, in order to point out what he feels is

a stunning contradiction: that while Christians refuse 'to practice

sacrifice, many of them bring sacrifice right back into the center of

Christian worship – by claiming that Jesus' death is a sacrifice for

human sin, and then by insisting that Christians who die as martyrs

are sacrifices pleasing to God'. Had this author seen church leaders

encouraging others – perhaps young men or women he knew, perhaps even

members of his own family – to embrace death in this way? Of course

we have no way of knowing, but his writing conveys the urgency of

someone who wants to unmask what he feels is the hideous folly of

religious leaders who encourage people to get themselves killed this

way – as though their suffering would guarantee the martyrs' personal

resurrection to huge rewards in heaven, just as Justin declared to

the Roman judge who sentenced him.

 

Yet the 'Gospel of Judas', too, pictures Jesus' death as a sacrifice,

for he tells Judas that by handing him over, he will surpass them

all, for " you will sacrifice the human being who bears me " (Judas

15:4). (P.60) So even though Jesus tells the disciples to " cease sac

[rificing] " (Judas 5:17), the issue for the 'Gospel of Judas' is not

simply whether Jesus' death and the deaths of his fellow Christians

should be understood as sacrifices – he agrees that they should. But

what he thinks is wrong is when bishops like Ignatius and Irenaeus

teach that those who " perfect " themselves through a martyr's death

are ensuring that God will reward them by raising them physically

from the dead – they are wrong both in the " God " they worship and in

thinking that the physical body will be raised to eternal life.

 

These errors arise because people are unable to perceive that

anything exists beyond this mortal, visible world; they are unable to

understand their place in the divine scheme of things. Because of

this ignorance, the true God and Father sent Jesus to teach and heal

so that people could come to know what " no human will see " and " whose

measure no angelic race has comprehended " (Judas 10:I,2). He teaches

Judas that there is a wider universe of the spirit beyond the limited

world people perceive, and unless they come to know it, they will

never know God or fulfil their own spiritual nature. For there is

another glorious divine realm above the material world, and an

immortal holy race exists above the perishable human race: these, he

says, are " the mysteries of the kingdom " (Judas 9:20). As long as

they remain ignorant, people are easy prey to the error of false gods.

(P.61) But Jesus appeared on earth in order to show the true nature

of the universe and the end time so that those who understand these

things would turn away from the worship of false gods – with all its

sacrificial violence and immorality – and discover their true

spiritual nature.

 

Almost half of Jesus' teaching is taken up with instructing Judas

about the existence and structure of the heavenly realm above, about

how this world and the gods who rule it came into being, and about

what will happen at the end of time. He teaches him that the

supposed " God " whom the other disciples worship is merely a lower

angel who is leading them astray by impelling them to offer

bloody sacrifice. It is this false " God " who is responsible for

having Jesus killed – and his disciples prove they are just like him

when they blaspheme Jesus and stone Judas to death.

 

As the 'Gospel of Judas' opens, Jesus finds his disciples praying and

giving thanks as they bless bread for worship – but he laughs at them

for what they are doing. What, then, is wrong with their worship?

What provokes Jesus' contempt? What the disciples are doing is

probably not simply offering thanks over a shared meal but practicing

the " thanksgiving " over the bread that Christians call " eucharist " ,

to " proclaim the Lord's death, " as the apostle Paul had taught

(I Corinthians 11:23-26). [1] Jesus explains to them that he is not

mocking them; he's laughing because they don't understand that they

are practicing the eucharist " so that your 'God' will receive

praise. " They wrongly think that Jesus is the son of their " God "

(Judas 2:6-9) and refuse to hear what he is saying, comfortable in

their self-righteousness: " [This] is what is right, " they protest

(Judas 2:5).

 

(P.62) As we saw, when Jesus tries to instruct the disciples, all but

Judas resist him, getting angry when he scoffs at their pieties, and

blaspheming him – proving that their " God who is within you " is easy

to provoke (Judas 2:12-15). Only Judas is able to stand before Jesus,

even though he is not able to look him in the eyes but turns his face

aside. But although he averts his eyes, Judas recognizes who Jesus

is, and dares speak: " I know who you are, and which place you came

from " (Judas 2:16-22). Thus Judas demonstrates that he is capable of

comprehending what the vision reveals – that beyond the universe we

perceive with our senses lies an invisible realm of Spirit that we

must come to know in order to know God, and our own spiritual nature.

 

Jesus then takes Judas aside and begins to teach him privately what

the others are not yet ready to hear: that beyond the visible world

they know is a heavenly realm where a great invisible Spirit dwells

in an infinite cloud of light. Although surpassing description, this

creative energy is the divine source of all things, both those in

heaven and those on earth. He teaches Judas that God first created

the invisible, heavenly realm, filling it with divine beings,

lights, and eternal realms called 'aeons', each with countless

myriads of angels.

 

In contrast to this brilliant eternal realm of light, the visible

world we live in now exists only as a kind of primeval darkness and

disorder. Before God created the cosmos, in the beginning there was

only chaos – like the description in 'Genesis' 1:2 that " the earth

was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep. "

(P.63) According to the author of the 'Gospel of Judas', God in his

goodness brought light and order to this world by setting rulers over

it in the form of the heavenly bodies – just as 'Genesis' 1:14-19

describes God creating " lights " in the dome of the sky to rule the

seasons and illumine the earth. Jesus also reveals to Judas the names

of the rulers God ordained: Nebro (Ialdabaoth), Saklas, and other

angels. They are clearly associated with specific heavenly bodies:

the sun with Nebro (with his face of fire), the seven-day week with

Saklas and his six angels, the zodiac with the twelve angels (who are

each given a portion of heaven), and the angels set to rule over " the

chaos and the oblivion " with the five planets (Judas 12:5-21).

 

Confusing as this account might appear to the modern reader, it is

crucial because it explains how evil, injustice, and suffering came

to exist in a world created by a loving and all-powerful God. This

conviction – that, far from being chaotic or random, the universe was

constructed by God according to a harmonious order – is expressed in

what is probably the original meaning of the Greek term 'cosmos'

( " order " ). But the author of the 'Gospel of Judas' suggests that the

term also means " what perishes. " That double meaning expresses the

view that God's creation is good but that nonetheless the rulers of

the lower world are flawed beings, who can lead humanity astray.

Jesus explains that God's goodness consists in ordering and

illuminating the primeval darkness of chaos; but nonetheless, in

order for the angels He creates to be able to rule over this

world, they have to partake of the nature of the world they rule.

(P.64) That means that they are limited in power and understanding;

theirs is the dim and consuming light of fire, not the glory of

divine illumination. In this way, Jesus' teaching here accounts for

how " fallen angels " come to have dominion over the world – much like

Satan and his angels, who appear in other Christian works such as

the 'Book of Revelation' in the New Testament, exercise sway over the

world.

 

As in the 'Book of Revelation', the 'Gospel of Judas' teaches that

God has set a limit to the time that these lower angels will rule. At

the end time, the lesser heavenly beings will be destroyed, along

with the stars and planets and the people they lead astray. The

author of the 'Gospel of Judas' agrees with the `Gospel of Mark' that

when the end time comes, what God created " in the beginning " will

collapse: " (T)he sun will be darkened, and the moon will not

give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the

powers in the heavens will be shaken " (Mark 13:24-25). For many

Christians, then as now, believed that the end time would be a time

of judgment, when those who do evil and the spiritual powers that

incite them to do evil will be destroyed. So, too, Jesus teaches

Judas that when the time of Saklas's rule comes to an end, the

stars will bring everything to completion, just as he prophesies; and

all those people who worship the angels will fall into a moral abyss,

fornicating and killing their children (Judas 14:2-8) – these are the

signs of the end.

 

What is most striking, however, is that in all the Christian

literature we know, only the author of the 'Gospel of Judas' says

that those who commit these sins do so in Jesus' name – that they

are " Christians! " (P.65) When people like " the twelve " practice

eucharist and sacrifice and encourage others to follow their

lead, they have fallen under the influence of angels who themselves

err, leading astray the people who worship them into error and

suffering. For as the 'Gospel of Judas' explains, although these

angels were created and appointed by God, they are deficient beings.

Unlike the heavenly angels in the divine realm above, they are

mortal, limited in their understanding, and sometimes make mistakes.

This suggestion is not original to the author of the 'Gospel of

Judas': Other Jewish and Christian sources of the time also introduce

such angels into the creation story to help account for the

sufferings and mistakes that characterize much of human experience –

while at the same time exempting God from creating anything evil.

 

Those who fall under such sinister celestial influences may be

driven, like " the twelve " , to commit violence and sexual immorality –

even killing their own children in the name of some lesser heavenly

power they mistake for God. As we have seen, Jesus rebukes " the

twelve " for making such a mistake – a fatal one, because, he teaches,

the way a person envisions God affects the way one lives. What was

wrong with " the twelve " was that they `believed' they worshipped the

God who was Jesus' Father but mistakenly imagined that " their God "

required sacrifice – not only the death of Jesus but also the

" sacrificial " death of their wives and children, who no doubt

represent the martyrs of the author's own day whom church leaders

encouraged to die for their faith. (P.66) Even when they worship God,

they " celebrate " their eucharist by re-enacting a death – the

crucifixion seen as a sacrifice. When Jesus laughs at their worship,

instead of asking him why or considering that they might be making a

mistake, they angrily blaspheme him to his face. Thus their own angry

violence mirrors that of " their God. " But the reverse is also true:

When Jesus reveals to Judas a different vision of God, this different

vision creates within him and all who worship God a very different

sense of who they are – and what God requires.

 

According to the 'Gospel of Judas', then, the fundamental problem is

that " the twelve " – here, stand-ins for church leaders – do not know

who Jesus is and do not understand who God is, either. They wrongly

think that God requires suffering and sacrifice. But the author of

the 'Gospel of Judas' – and others within the early movement as well -

was asking questions like this: What does such teaching make of God?

Is God, then, unwilling or unable to forgive human transgression

without violent bloodshed – from either the cut throats of goats

and bulls, or – worse – human sacrifice? [2] Are Christians to

worship a God who demands what the Hebrew Bible says that the God of

Abraham refused – child sacrifice, even that of his own son? What

kind of God would require anyone – much less his own son – to die in

agony before he accepts his followers?

 

Over the centuries, Christians have answered these questions in

various ways. [3] (P.67) One answer is that God is, of course,

merciful and loving but also just in requiring sacrifice to atone for

human sin: Somehow, the debt incurred by sin must be paid. But the

measure of his love, as the 'Gospel of John' says, is precisely this –

that " God so loved the world that he gave his only son, so that

everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life "

(John 3:16). What could demonstrate God's love more fully than that?

 

Yet the 'Gospel of Judas' and other newly discovered works show that

some Christians argued instead that people are gravely mistaken in

worshipping such a limited, angry – even cruel – " God " . As we saw,

when Jesus mocks his disciples' eucharist, the author of the 'Gospel

of Judas' says they do not realize that they worship in error – not

the true God but, as Jesus tells them, " your 'God.' " Astonished, the

disciples protest that " 'you are' the Son of our God, " but they

are wrong. Jesus is the son of the true God. The 'Gospel of Judas'

pictures such worship as a nightmare – one that distorts Jesus'

teaching, mistakes the meaning of his death, and gives a false

picture of God.

 

Ingeniously, the 'Gospel of Judas' pictures the nightmare as

something that the twelve disciples themselves have dreamed up – and

it goes on to dramatize their horror at what they dreamed. The

disciples, it says, all had the same dream in which they saw twelve

priests standing at a great altar offering sacrifice. (P.68) But

instead of picturing a scene of holy worship, they see these priests

engaged in sacrilege – not only leading animals to sacrifice on their

altar, but committing violence and sexual sin: above all, killing

their own wives and children as human sacrifice, and doing all this

in Jesus' name! Horrified, the disciples go to Jesus to tell him the

dream and ask him what it could mean (Judas 4:2-17).

 

Jesus' answer shocks them even more: " You, " he says, " are the twelve

men whom you saw " (Judas 5:3). What they see in their dream is a

graphic picture of what they themselves are doing. While imagining

that they are pleasing God, they are actually serving their own

distorted view of a " God " who, they believe, wants human sacrifice

(Judas 5:13-14). In their dream, they are seeing themselves as

the true God sees them – as evil priests who lead many of their

" flock " to their destruction, like animals to slaughter.

 

The 'Gospel of Judas' does not tell us how the twelve disciples

reacted, but if their previous behavior is any guide, they must have

been horrified. Certainly the charge Jesus makes would have surprised

and offended most readers, for Christians prided themselves on having

rejected the practice of sacrifice, associating it either with Jewish

worship in the Jerusalem Temple or with the worship of the false gods

of their pagan neighbors. Praying and sacrificing to idols, they

believed, would inevitably lead to immorality. Paul claims that

people who do such things deserve to die (Romans 1:18-32) – and that

the " gods " who require animal sacrifice, are really demons (I

Corinthians 10:20). [4]

 

Yet Christians were not the first to denounce such practices. (P.69)

On the contrary, they were following traditions already well

established in their day. Israel's prophets, as well as Greek and

Roman philosophers, had criticized conventional religion for

promoting superstition, immorality, and violence by giving people

wrong ideas about God. For centuries, Jewish teachers had

denounced pagan worship, accusing their neighbors of carving images

from wood or casting them from metal and then kneeling down to

worship what they had made. Jewish teachers, including Jesus'

disciple Paul, charged that devotion to false gods – gods who, they

said, are actually demons [5] – leads people into violence, sexual

immorality, perhaps even murder and the killing of children.[6]

 

The great Jewish prophets such as Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah denounced

not only pagan worship but also the sacrifices offered by their own

people to the one true God in the Jerusalem Temple. Speaking in the

Lord's name, Hosea declared that " I desire steadfast love and not

sacrifice, the knowledge of God, rather than burnt-offerings " (Hosea

6:6). Amos, too, speaking for God, declared:

 

I hate, I despise your festivals....Even though you offer me your

burnt-offerings and grain-offerings, I will not accept them; and the

offerings of well-being of your fatted animals I will not look

upon....But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like

an ever-flowing stream (Amos 5:21-24)

 

(P.70) Many Jews, including Jesus, agreed with Amos that what God

requires above all is " to do justice, and to love kindness, and to

walk humbly with your God " (Micah 6:8); without these virtues

sacrifice was unacceptable. According to the 'Gospel of Mark', Jesus

teaches that the greatest commandment is to " love the Lord your God

with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your

mind. The second is this, 'You love your neighbor as yourself' " (Mark

12:30-31). After he speaks a Jewish scribe applauds, agreeing that

these commandments are " more important than all whole burnt-offerings

and sacrifices " (Mark 12:33). [7]

 

Greek and Roman philosophers, too, criticized certain religious

practices, arguing that their own myths about jealous and petty gods

who fomented war and committed rape proved that these gods did not

deserve devotion. [8] Some people even questioned whether

slaughtering animals in sacrifice actually pleased the gods. [9]

Philosophers often argued that the gods do not require the smell and

taste of sacrifice for their food but rather, as the moral

philosopher Porphyry said, " The best sacrifice to the gods is a pure

mind and a soul free from passions. " [10]

 

Yet everyone who criticized sacrifice – whether Jew, Christian, or

pagan – regarded human sacrifice as the worst of all. The Jewish

author of the 'Wisdom of Solomon', for example, claimed that God gave

the land of Canaan to the Israelites because the Canaanites had

mercilessly slaughtered children, and feasted on the human flesh and

blood they had sacrificed (Wisdom 12:5-6). The Roman governor Pliny

says that the Senate first passed a law against human sacrifice only

as recently as 97 B.C.E., and until then " these monstrous rites

were still performed. " [11] (P.71) Pliny adds that suspect people –

Druids and magicians – still practice human sacrifice; for him this

proves how savage they are. [12] Whether accurate or not, these

denunciations show that human sacrifice horrified people.

 

Since Christians were famous – or notorious – for rejecting

sacrifice, and some even chose to die rather than perform it, the

author of the 'Gospel of Judas' surely intends to shock his readers

when he pictures " the twelve " not only offering animals in sacrifice

to God but offering him even human sacrifice! Only their worst

enemies accused Christians of slaughtering children and promoting

all kinds of immoral behavior. Some apparently understood the

symbolic Christian practice of eating the body and drinking the blood

of Jesus as, literally, cannibalism. [13]

 

Until recently it appeared that criticizing Christians for immorality

came solely from the outside – notably, from Greek and Roman

philosophers, who were appalled at this new " sect. " The 'Gospel of

Judas' now adds a new voice to the bitter debate that was raging

within Christian circles, like that of another outspoken Christian,

who wrote a vehement attack he called the 'Testimony of Truth' to

challenge what he felt was the false testimony of those who glorified

martyrdom. Like the 'Gospel of Judas', this protest was buried

centuries ago; it was discovered only in 1945 near Nag Hammadi. [14]

(P.72) This author declares that " foolish people, thinking in their

heart that if they only confess in words, 'We are Christians,' ...

while giving themselves over to a human death, " they will gain

eternal life. These 'empty martyrs...testify only to themselves. "

What their actions really testify to, the author says, is their

ignorance: " they do not know ... who Christ is, " and they foolishly

believe that " if we deliver ourselves over to death for the sake of

the name " – the name of Christ – " we will be saved. " The author of

the 'Testimony of Truth', like the author of 'Judas' suggests that

such people do not know the true God. Those who imagine that human

sacrifice pleases God have no understanding of the Father; instead,

they have fallen under the influence of wandering stars that lead

them astray ('Testimony of Truth' 34:1-11). Rather than turning

believers toward salvation, such leaders actually are delivering them

into the clutches of the authorities, who kill them. All that such

violence accomplishes is their own destruction.

 

What, then, is " the true testimony " to Christ? To proclaim his mighty

works of deliverance and compassion – how the Son of Man raised the

dead, healed the paralyzed, restored sight to the blind, healed those

suffering from sickness or tormented by demons. While these would-be

martyrs are themselves " sick, unable to raise even themselves "

('Testimony of Truth' 31:22-34:11), this author declares that those

who truly witness to Christ proclaim that God's power brings

wholeness and life. The true testimony, this author declares, is " to

know oneself, and the God who is over the truth. " Only one who

testifies to this message of deliverance wins the " crown " that others

mistakenly say that martyrs earn by dying ('Testimony of Truth' 44:23-

45:6).

 

(P.73) While the 'Testimony of Truth' thus denounces – even

ridicules - the martyrs themselves, the 'Gospel of Judas', as we

noted, stops short of this choosing only to criticize the leaders who

encourage would-be martyrs to court destruction. Another of the Nag

Hammadi texts, the 'Apocalypse of Peter', allows us to hear the voice

of a third vocal critic of Christian leaders who urge martyrdom upon

devout believers. This author singles out especially " those who

call themselves bishops and deacons, as if they had received their

authority from God " ; such people, he wrote, " are dry canals! "

('Apocalypse of Peter' 79:22-31). Charging that these leaders

themselves are the heretics ('Apocalypse of Peter' 74:20-22),

the 'Apocalypse' says that " These are the ones who oppress their

brothers, saying to them, 'Through this (suffering) our God has mercy,

since salvation comes to us through this,' " oblivious that they

themselves will incur divine punishment for the part they played in

sending so many of the " little ones " to their death ('Apocalypse of

Peter' 79:11-21).

 

When denouncing such leaders as not only mistaken but implicated in

bloodshed, however, this author apparently is writing to fellow

Christians who are living in fear of persecution. The 'Apocalypse of

Peter' – that is, God's " revelation " to Peter – opens to a scene of

Peter and other disciples standing in the Jerusalem Temple in a

moment of mortal terror. Peter says, " I saw the priests and the

people running up to us with stones, as if they would kill us; and I

was afraid that we were going to die " ('Apocalypse of Peter' 72:6-9).

(P.74) But instead of advising them to avoid suffering a martyr's

death, the 'Apocalypse of Peter' encourages them to face such a death

with courage and hope, as Jesus tells Peter: " You, therefore, be

courageous and do not fear at all. For I shall be with you in order

that none of your enemies may prevail over you. Peace be to you. Be

strong! " ('Apocalypse of Peter' 84:6-11). Thus the reader would

understand that a writing like this, which claims to convey

a " revelation " Jesus gave to Peter when the terrified disciple faced

his own death, was also written to console any believer who feared

the same fate – and, for that matter, anyone who faces, and fears,

impending death.

 

When it comes to our second question – How does such teaching impel

people to act? - some Christians, like Irenaeus, when faced with the

reality of persecution and death, advocated that people should be

martyred, arguing that God wills all this suffering for people's own

good. For Irenaeus, suffering and even death are meant to teach

people about the greatness and goodness of God in granting eternal

life to a sinful humanity. [15] But the author of the 'Gospel

of Judas' not only denies that God desires such sacrifice, he also

suggests that the practical effect of such views is hideous: It makes

people complicit in murder. By teaching that Jesus died in agony " for

the sins of the world " and encouraging his followers to die as he

did, certain leaders send them on a path toward destruction – while

encouraging them with the false promise that they will be resurrected

from death to eternal life in the flesh.

 

(P.75) But the 'Gospel of Judas' rejects the resurrection of the

body. What meaning, then, can be found in Jesus' death? The author

offers a radical answer. When Jesus tells Judas to " sacrifice the

human being who bears me, " he is asking Judas to help him demonstrate

to his followers how, when they step beyond the limits of earthly

existence, they, like Jesus, may step into the infinite – into God.

 

Reading Judas - The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity,

Pg. 59-75

Elaine Pagels and Karen L. King

Penguin Group – London, England

ISBN 978-0-713-99984-6

 

 

Notes: (P.178-182)

 

[1] During the second century, " fathers of the church " show that

Christians disagreed about what the eucharist meant. Bishop Ignatius,

for example, declared that those he calls heretics " do not confess

that the eucharist is the flesh of our savior, Jesus Christ "

(Smyrneans 7:1); Ignatius himself insists that the cup of wine offers

union with Christ's blood, and the bread with his flesh (Philippians

4:1); thus it becomes the " medicine of immortality, the antidote so

that we should not die, but live forever " (Ephestans 20:2). Ignatius

connects this view of the eucharist, then, with bodily resurrection

and, for that matter, with bishops whose participation alone can

ensure proper worship (Smyrneans 7-8). The author of the 'Gospel of

Philip' speaks as a Christian who takes the eucharistic elements

symbolically " His flesh is the 'logos', and his blood the holy

spirit " ), and sees the resurrection as a spiritual process, not a

physical one ('Philip'. 57.3-9). Irenaeus, writing toward the end of

the second century, also derides " heretics " who celebrate the

eucharist, and yet do not believe in bodily [fleshly] resurrection,

for which Irenaeus regards it as the appropriate preparatory

nourishment (see 'Against Heresies' 4.17.5-18.5: " Just as the bread,

which is produced from the earth, when it receives God's invocation

is no longer common bread, but the eucharist...so also our bodies,

when they receive the eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having

the hope of the resurrection to eternity. "

 

[2] See Tertullian's discussion in 'Scorpiace', where he enumerates

questions like these as examples of " heretical poison " spread by

dissidents who question whether God desires – or commands – martyrdom.

 

[3] The history of this position, generally known as " the doctrine of

atonement " , is notoriously varied, having been interpreted and

reinterpreted from the early church into the twenty-first century.

Christians have thought about Jesus' death as a ransom to liberate

human sinners from bondage to sin and the devil (Gregory of Nyssa and

Augustine); they have talked about the way human sin offends God's

honor, so Christ paid off the infinite debt owed to God with his

perfect obedience unto death (Anselm); they have said that Christ's

atonement is sufficient for the sins of the whole world (Aquinas), or

that Christ's life and death are meant as an inspiring exemplar of

love and obedience to God, intended to move people to repent of their

sins and reform their lives (Abelard); and so on. Here we try to

focus on the kind of views present in the first and second centuries

that the author of the `Gospel of Judas' seems to take aim against.

It should be noted, too, that theologians working on the articulation

of atonement theory often address exactly such concerns: How should

we think about God in light of Jesus' death? For further discussion,

see Paul S. Fiddes, 'Past Event and Present Salvation: The Christian

Idea of Atonement' (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press,

1989).

 

[4] This was a common charge by Christians and Jews (see the

discussion in R.P.C. Hanson, " The Christian Attitude to Pagan

Religions up to the Time of Constantine the Great " 'Aufsteig und

Niedergang der romischen Welt', Wolfgang Haase, editor. II. Principat

23/2 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), pp. 910-973 esp. pp. 925-927.

 

[5] Deuteronomy 32:17.

 

[6] For example, Paul's denunciations we saw above closely resemble

those of the Jewish author of the 'Wisdom of Solomon', who charges

that devotion to false gods has corrupted pagans: " ...living in great

strife ... whether they kill children in their initiations, or

celebrate secret mysteries, or hold frenzied revels with strange

customs ... they either treacherously kill one another, or grieve one

another by adultery, and all is a raging riot of blood and murder...

and debauchery. For the worship of idols... is the beginning and

cause and end of every evil " (Wisdom 14:22-27).

 

[7] See also 'Matthew' 9:13; 12:7.

 

[8] See the discussion of Harold W. Attridge, " The Philosophical

Critique of Religion Under the Early Empire " in 'Aufsteig und

Niedergang der romischen Welt', Wolfgang Haas, editor. II. Principat.

16.1 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1978), pp. 45-78); R.P.C. Hanson,

op. cit., esp. pp. 910-918.

 

[9] The social critic and satirist Lucian describes what would have

been a common scene of sacrifice in any city in the Roman

empire: " Although ... no one is to be allowed within the holy-water

who has not clean hands, the priest himself stands there all bloody

just like the Cyclops of old, cutting up the victim, removing the

entrails, plucking out the heart, pouring the blood about the altar,

and doing everything possible in the way of piety. To crown it all,

he lights a fire and puts upon it the goat, skin and all and sheep,

wool and all; and the smoke, divine and holy, mounts upward and

gradually dissipates into Heaven itself " ('On Sacrifices' 13,

translated from A.M. Harmon 'Lucian', Loeb Classical Library edition,

Vol. III. [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921], p.169). Is

this what the gods really want? Lucian scoffs. Other philosophers

also mocked aspects of pagan worship: The philosopher Heraclitus of

Ephesus ridiculed those who worshipped images, suggesting that anyone

who approaches and prays before statues as if they were gods acts

like a person who tries to engage in conversation with houses (cited

in Origen, 'Contra Celsum' 1.5, translated by Henry Chadwick,

[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953], p.9). The Platonist

teacher Celsus complains that even when images are made by craftsmen

with loose morals, people still regard them as worth worshipping

(ibid).

 

[10] Cited by Eusebius, 'The Preparation for the Gospel' 4.14d

(translated by Edwin Hamilton Gifford [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book

House, 1981], Part I, p. 167. Although Porphyry is writing after

the 'Gospel of Judas' was composed, the sentiment he expresses was

widespread in the first and second centuries (see Attridge, op. cit.).

 

[11] See 'Natural History' 30.12, cited from Mary Beard, John North,

and Simon Price 'Religions of Rome, Vol. 2: A Sourcebook' (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 156-160.

 

[12] 'Natural History' 30.12-13, For other examples of Romans

offering human sacrifice, see 'Plutarch, Roman Questions' 83, ibid;

and the discussion of J. Rives, " Human Sacrifice among Pagans and

Christians " in 'The Journal of Roman Studies' 85 (1995), pp. 65-85.

 

[13] Those hostile to Christians accused them of murdering and eating

infants as a central " mystery " of their worship. One such critic is

quoted as saying that initiates are required to kill a child, and

then: " I can hardly mention this, but they thirstily lap up the

infant's blood, eagerly tear his body apart, make a covenant over

this sacrificial victim, and by complicity in the crime they bind

themselves to mutual silence. These rites are more foul than any form

of sacrilege " (Minucius Felix, 'Octavius' 9.5, cited from Mary Beard,

John North and Simon Price, 'Religions of Rome. Vol. 2: A Sourcebook'

[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998], p.281). How did such a

slanderous charge of ritual murder and cannibalism get started? Some

outsiders may have inferred this from what they heard about

Christians eating " the flesh and blood " (bread and wine) of God's son

(see Stephen Benko, 'Pagan Rome and the Early Christians'

[bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1984], especially p.62).

But in any case, it fits the pattern we have seen of condemning other

people's religious practices as impious and immoral (see J. Rives,

" Human Sacrifice among Pagans and Christians " in `The Journal of

Roman Studies' 85 [1995], pp. 65-85).

 

[14] All references to this work are from Birger Pearson and Soren

Giversen, 'The Testimony of Truth', pp. 101-203 in 'Nag Hammadi

Codices IX and X.' (Leiden: E.J. Brill) 1981).

 

[15] See 'Against Heresies' V.2.3; English translation from A.

Clevelan Coxe, 'The Ante-Nicene Fathers', Vol. I, (Grand Rapids, MI:

Erdmans, 1885 [reprint 1979]), p.528.