logos pleroma chptr 4
NHS is a glitch in the matrix that was never supposed to, in the skewed perspective of the Church Fathers, rear its ugly head ever again, ...proving once again that Karma is a bitch, indeed.
The Nag Hammadi Scriptures unearthed in the Egyptian desert in 1945 filled a lacuna in the history of Christianity not very many people had known was there. Previously, gnostic texts had only been referenced in passing, in mostly antagonistic commentaries of the early Church Fathers.
One of the foremost critics of gnostic thought, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (AD 130 to 202) railed against “The Gospel of Judas,” the apostle who betrayed Christ, comically complaining that it showed the universally despised figure in a good light, completely ignoring the paradox that Jesus wouldn’t have fulfilled the prophecy without Judas, in a weird way transfiguring the latter’s evil deed into a necessary good, some would say Thee Number One Rated Good of All Time: the redemption of humanity.
Now, instead of inferring the nature of these writings from secondhand accounts, they are available to be read and understood by everyone with a thirst for knowledge of what might, would or could have led to a completely altered history of the world had the gnostic system of Christianity won out over its victorious rival, orthodoxy. Per the ubiquitous and all-encompassing pattern, the reason for orthodoxy’s triumph was it’s ability to concentrate and project political power. The dispensation of the truth, as always seems to be the case in these struggles for ideological supremacy, was a tertiary matter.
The bureaucratic hierarchy of priest, deacon and bishop allowed the orthodoxy to keep a tight leash on the body of its growing congregations, shoring up its dogma from its headquarters in Rome. That the Church kept these so-called gnostic heresies buried for almost 2000 years tells us something, and that the Church probably had a hand in keeping them under wraps for as long as possible after they had been re-discovered last century by Muhammed Ali in a clay pot near the Egyptian village of Nag Hammadi is, of course, just intuitive speculation. Everyone knows that a mega-powerful institution that has kept a rival aspect of itself hidden for nearly two thousand years would never think to bother with trying to keep the cover-up going as long as is ever-lovingly possible. And, as well, we all know that whoever traffics in industrial-scale censorship always turns out to be the “good guys” of history, right? Just like Stalin or them there Natseez, or the feller who turned in the Lord for thirty pieces of silver.
Insofar as Judas’s historical standing and that of the gnostic scriptures goes, there is much more to them than the eye can see. That the tractates found in Nag Hammadi were contemporaneous with the canonical books of the Bible there is no question.
In 180 CE, Irenaeus (Ancient Greek: Εἰρηναῖος; 2nd century CE – c. 202) who was Bishop of Lugdunum [Lyon] in Gaul, and wrote extensively about the Gnostics. … he became an influential Christian priest, celebrated for writing a document in which he railed against [The] Gospel [of] Judas, indicating the book was already in circulation. According to some biblical scholars, the findings at Nag Hammadi have shown Irenaeus’ description of Gnosticism to be largely inaccurate and polemic in nature.
—Robinson, James M. (1990). The Nag Hammadi Library. San Francisco, CA, USA: HarperSanFrancisco. p. 1041
The budding orthodoxy preferred to tell its own stories to the exclusion of the gnostics’ and shore up its power by disconnecting gnostic thought from the Church altogether. Albeit, the loose organization of the gnostic way of doing things played a major role in its inability to keep pace with the ortho’s, in comparison, well-oiled machine.
…their ordinations are carelessly administered, capricious and changeable….today one man is bishop and tomorrow another; the person who is a deacon today, is tomorrow a reader; the one who is a priest today is a layman tomorrow; for even on the laity they impose the functions of priesthood!2
—early church father Tertullian
How dare they let those filthy Samaritans guide the congregation!
Still, such a haphazard structure and lack of a chain of command eventually led to dissolution rather than victory over the disciplined and militant forces of their reflexive brethren. Decentralized power and laissez-faire does not lend itself to gaining the upper hand in a power struggle, and this lack of rigor shows they shared the blame for losing out once the schism began.
Although Jesus himself would beg to differ, the church of which he is the head was built upon the axiom of “might makes right” and not “love your neighbor.” You snooze, you lose and the surly bird gets the Word.
Unfortunately for the gnostics, they were naïve to think the church should adhere to the teachings of its ostensible leader rather than conduct itself in such a draconian manner as scratching and clawing its way to gain and keep a death grip on its accumulation of worldly power. None of the orthodox church fathers were wearing their friendship bracelets inscribed with the initials “WWJD?” during that time in history. And even if they were, they weren’t acting in accord with its prescription.
Take the aforementioned Irenaeus. In order to make the gnostics’ calumny complete he wrote an exhaustive treatise titled Against Heresies attacking their alternative cosmogony relentlessly for north of six hundred pages. To be honest, I don’t have the stamina nor the inclination to read it, but simply perusing the chapter headings gives one the gist of its total lack of respect for their contemporary Christian brothers:
Chapter 6: The threefold kind of man feigned by these heretics: good works needless for them, though necessary for others; their abandoned morals
Chapter 9: Refutation of the impious interpretations of these heretics
Chapter 16: Absurd interpretations of the Marcosians
Chapter 21: The views of redemption entertained by these heretics
I am reminded of an ancient Saturday Night Live skit involving Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtin where they are sitting at the Weekend Update desk doing the Point/Counterpoint thing. When it’s Dan’s turn to speak he begins his rebuttal with the acerbic rebuke: “Jane, you ignorant slut.”
I mean, Damn! Tell us how your really feel, Irenaeus! These chapter headings don’t exactly holler “fair and balanced.” But then again, they weren’t meant to be. When you’re in the gladiatorial arena you’re not looking to fight fair, but decapitate your opponent by any means necessary. Damned if Irenaeus ad hominem mud slinging which isn’t on par with any of our more petulant and catty national politicians, the all-time best practitioners of this black art.
One of The Powers That Be’s main strategies is, was and always will be obfuscation or, in other words, bad faith debate that is almost always a form of projection that boils down to the infantile argumentation we all perfected in 2nd grade.
Upgraded for a supposedly mature audience—though no less puerile, but remarkably effective—Saul Alinsky gave the concept mainstream legitimacy when he rewrote it as one of the main tenets of his "Rules for Radicals: “Blame your adversary for that of which you are guilty.“
The diabolical genius of this tactic is that if one is guilty of something, … it doesn’t seem plausible that they could point the finger and, by projection, confess to their [transgressions] by pawning it off on you. It’s just too brazen a thing to imagine either you or I would have the shamelessness to do.
Shamelessness and {an absence] of conscience are two of the main traits of psychopathy. Sadly for us, most people who rise to [the pinnacles] of power, for lack of a conscience, have no shame.
(props to you if you can finish the syllogism…but if not, here she is:
We are ruled by psychopaths.3
It’s only through the eyes wide shut mentality of the true believer’s cognitive dissonance that they can think the Church—one of, if not the most powerful and influential institutions in modern history—would be any different.
Arthur Frederick Ide’s Blog, Oct. 4 2011: Judas Did Not Betray Jesus
https://arthuride.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/judas-did-not-betray-jesus/
Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum (On the prescription of heretics)
https://www.tertullian.org/works/de_praescriptione_haereticorum.htm
Ted Rorschalk, Algebra of Conspiracy, pg. 51
https://www.amazon.com/Algebra-Conspiracy-Ted-Rorschalk/dp/B0FBL9BHS2/ref=sr_1_1?crid=CTD6416AZHDT&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.YnwXOtAGfrJycqnIxpbbl3AauSBSvvOMfJcfD4bwviU.o3Xfr-tBvmUBQlAYm7YZJ4TeWWxGdGy-o6xiGvRyKlc&dib_tag=se&keywords=algebra+of+conspiracy&qid=1751148865&sprefix=algebra+of+con%2Caps%2C210&sr=8-1