Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

Agnus Dei painted 1635-40 by Francisco de Zurbarán.

Photograph by Museo Nacional del Prado

The Blood of the Lamb—The Story of a Religious Coup


For Jesus of Nazareth Love was the essence of life, but for Paul—the actual founder of the
Christian Church—Jesus of Nazareth became the essence of life. For only by slaughtering
HIM as a sacrificial Lamb was it possible for God to quench his anger over the sins of
Humanity, and give us new life. Such is the vulgar doctrine of atonement, with
which Paul destroyed Christianity. It still stands to the detriment of Jesu1teaching of love.

By Christian Nicholas Eversbusch, MA

At this time of year—Easter—many of us eat meat of lamb though only a few of us


think of the origin for this tradition. And even fewer realize that their Lamb draws long
traces of sacrificial blood back to the greatest religious coup in history.

Let’s go back in time, about 2,500 years, to the time when the Israelites received the
Fourth Book of Moses:
1
In this article the Latin genitive Jesu is used instead of the English genitive Jesus’
“The Lord said to Moses and Aron in Egypt: ‘…On the tenth day of this month you shall take a
lamb or a kid to every household in your congregation…and the whole assembly of the congre-
gation of Israel shall kill it in the evening just before dark. And they shall take some of the blood
and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses wherein they shall
eat it…For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and I will smite all the firstborn in the
land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgement: I
am the LORD! And the blood shall be for you as a token upon the houses where ye are: and
when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague shall be upon you to destroy you, when
I smite the land of Egypt.’” (9:1-14).

These commandments of Jahve, the God of war, were followed scrupulously year after
year. In memory of the Exodus from Egypt, as laid down in the Fourth Book of Moses,
the Israelites would strike blood on their door posts. But the sacrifices also were meant
to satisfy the demanding Jahve, yes, to atone for the guilt one had incurred by not
following all the demands of the Torah. Thus, every year at Easter the Temple in
Jerusalem was turned into a slaughterhouse running with blood. For all the lambs to be
consumed by every household of Jerusalem had to be slaughtered in the Temple.
Otherwise the old Israelites thought that those who consumed the meat would not
participate in the sanctification, in that the meat would not bind them directly to God.

From the gospels we know that Jesus too, with his parents, celebrated Easter—or more
precisely: the Jewish festival Pesakh, Passover—in Jerusalem. Twice. He didn’t survive
the third. That’s when he was crucified.

“Mercy I Desire, not Sacrifice”

The picture painted of Jesus in most of our written sources shows us a spiritual master
high above the sacrificial ideas of the Hebrews. As he tells the Pharisees: “Mercy I
desire, not sacrifice” (Matthew 9:13). The clear image of God that Jesus carried in his
heart was not an image of a bloodthirsty god of war. It was an image of the loving
Father of all mankind, a Father who will not be suborned by bloody sacrifices; a Father
who as an act of mercy forgives his deepest fallen son (The parable of the Prodigal Son).

But he, Jesus, who preached this unconditional love, would himself be “slaughtered” as
a bloody Lamb of Easter. Indeed, by the cruel irony of fate, this religious reformer who
spoke against all bloody sacrifice was reduced to a sacrificial animal. For in his spiritual
narrow-mindedness, Saul of Tarsus—better known as Paul the Apostle, the actual
founder of the Christian Church—was unable to put himself above the Jewish tradition
of sacrifices. The ideas that Paul used in his efforts to explain the meaning of the life of
Jesus were thus products of his time. And what was worse: Paul had never known the
master from Nazareth, but in his willfulness, he nevertheless felt justified to dismiss the
tradition received directly from Jesu disciples. It clearly goes from Paul’s letters that he

2
didn’t think it a coincidence that Jesus had been crucified during Easter (or Passover).
He didn’t think it a coincidence that Jesus had taken leave of his disciples by drinking
wine and breaking bread with them. No, there had to be a special meaning hidden in this
Last Supper. A meaning reflecting the connection the old Hebrews thought to attain
with Jahve by eating the sacrificed lamb. The wine had to be a token of Jesu blood, as
the bread had to exemplify his flesh.

Jesus preached the Kingdom of God, but instead came the Church

For this willful interpretation of Jesu teachings, Paul won more and more followers
despite fierce resistance from Jesu original disciples. Paul was a tireless orator trained in
Greek rhetoric and dialectics. The unlettered disciples were no match for his
authoritative oratory in the crowds. And thus, it happened that the death of Jesus—not
his life—became the essence of Christianity. The body of Christ thus became the
meaning of his life. Yes, for it was soon established that in the blood of Jesus, all his
followers could wash themselves clean of sin and guilt.

Of the evangelical texts of his time, the Church Father Origin (185-254), wrote: “the
differences in the texts were manifold” since the transcribers “added or left out what
suited them.” Since the texts of Scripture were still not sealed, there was ample
opportunity to adjust their content to the interpretation advocated by the dominant
religious persuasion, and destroy the writings with different interpretations. The Victor
writes the history. And the victor became the Christianity we know today; the theology
of blood.

The gospel of Love lost: For what does mercy and forgiveness account for, when all sin
once and for all is washed away in blood? Yeah, what does “Love your neighbor as
yourself” mean, when God–-who lets his perfect son crucify—decides that from now
on, the all-important condition for salvation is that one believes in the “magic” of the
blood.

But those who do not believe in this blood magic, what happens to them? They will be
annihilated—forever. For God loves only those who believe in Paul’s interpretation of
the teaching of Jesus. It is argued.

Surely, “religious coup” is the right expression to describe what happened to the original
teachings of Jesus.

One well understands the French religious historian who said that Jesus preached the
Kingdom of God, what emerged, however, was the Church.

3
“These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke”

The losers did not give up instantly. They fought for what they maintained was the true
gospel of Jesus. The mysterious Gospel of Thomas, not found until 1945, begins thus:
“These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas
recorded”. Basilides, who was active in Alexandria between 117 and 138, also claimed to
carry on a tradition originating from Jesu disciple Peter, and the so-called Ebionites
invoked a holy scripture they called “The Gospel of the Twelve.” In it Jesus says among
other things: “I have come to abolish the sacrifices, and if you do not discontinue the
sacrifices, the wrath will not leave you.”

Several other sources lend further credibility to the notion of a hidden or at any rate
poorly illuminated tradition which—skirting and circumventing the ruling church—goes
back to Jesus. Under names like the Gnostics, Manicheans, Bogomiles and the Cathari,
we know the foremost defenders of this tradition. From early Christianity and all the
way to the end of the Middle Ages, those movements defied as well the orthodox
Church in the east, as the Papacy in the west, but most of their adherents suffered a dark
ending; tormented, plagued, decapitated, flared, crucified or burned at the stake as they
were—together with their scriptures.

What Jesu original teachings were about we thus have to deduce partly from the writings
that survived the fire, partly from those parts of the gospels that survived the influence
of Paul.

The Second Coming of Christ

Such were the conditions at least until 1920. For in that year happened—unnoticed even
today by most everyone—something the world’s Christians have longed for almost 2000
years: The Second Coming of Christ.

No, the promised return of Jesus did not happen the way most had anticipated: As a re-
incarnation. It happened on the other hand in the form of two mediumistically
transferred speeches, which have inspired me to write this essay. They can be read in the
books Toward the Light: A Message to Mankind from the Transcendental World and in The
Doctrine of Atonement and the Shorter Road: A Message to All Who Bear the Name of Christian.
Both books were published here in Copenhagen by assistant professor Michael
Agerskov and contained urgent requests for a new reformation of our church.
Several priests rejected the books alone because of the thought-inspired way in which
their content had been transferred to our world.2 A strange reaction. Partly because the
2
A full description of the way high intelligences from the transcendental world worked with the
medium, Johanne Agerskov, during the transfer of the content of the books to our world can be found
in the postscript to Toward the Light!: A Message to Mankind from the Transcendental World.

4
same priests had no reservations toward the transcendental messages that repeatedly
flowed to Paul, John, the prophets and others. And partly because the trustworthiness of
a book must be determined by its content and not by the way it came into being.

It is thus very strange that after almost 100 years no serious review or criticism of the
above-mentioned books have materialized. If the men and women of the Lutheran
Evangelical Church will not accept Toward the Light! and related works, then they must
clearly show that the representation of the teachings of Jesus given here is inferior to the
one they themselves teach. Then they must clearly show why they choose the inherited
dogma. Yeah, if the messages in Toward the Light! and related works go against the
Bishops’ and the Priests’ understanding of the divine, do they not have an obligation to
warn their congregations against them?

For almost 100 years it has been possible to read Jesu original and unadulterated
teaching of love—formulated by the master himself, in Danish.3 Likewise, for almost
100 years it has been possible to read Paul’s authoritative refutation of his own doctrine
of atonement; a task that God—as explained in Toward the Light!—laid on him, since he
failed to perform it during his incarnation as Martin Luther4.

Words by the Repentant Paul

Toward the end of Paul/Luther’s 26 pages long refutation of the doctrine of atonement
it is said:

“But when we have seen that the teaching of Jesus was far superior to that which before his
time had formed mankind's most exalted concept of the Originator and the Lord of Heaven
and Earth, we should be able to conclude that in all probability Jesus must have been an
emissary and spokesman for the hidden, the still unknown God. But if we have reached this

3
Since 1979 an authorized English translation has been available. Furthermore, the book is available in
German, Spanish, French, Italian, Swedish, Norwegian and Russian translations.
4 Among other things Toward the Light! say of him are the following (p. 82): “Though Luther’s power and

authority were great, though he was hard and unyielding toward his foes, he still remained faint of heart
when alone; for he perceived that God’s full strength was not upon him. At times, he was seized by fear
and terror of the Darkness that streamed toward him, and he felt that he was bound by the hatred that
emanated from the Elder, the Servant of Darkness; so that at times he did not heed the voice which
sought to guide him.
…But despite the many and grave faults of Luther as a man, he was able to reject certain of the false
teachings of the Elder, and he and Zwingli together were able to bring humanity a few steps further
toward the goal.
But neither of them was able to carry out that great work, which had been laid down before they were
born unto the Earth, the great work that together they should have performed among human beings.
– When Luther and Zwingli met once more in the heavenly abodes, after death had broken their earthly
bodies, they both grieved much over the enmity which the Elder had called forth between them while
they lived upon the Earth.”

5
far in our understanding of the mission of Jesus, we should also be able to understand fully that
this loving God and Father did not send His son to Earth so that in human form he could present himself as a
sin offering for all the world! Indeed, all should be able to understand that a divine Being, perfect in
every way, that is raised high, infinitely high above all that is human, so high that no human
thought can comprehend His profound love and boundless compassion, indeed, so high that
no human words can express the sublimity and purity of His Being, could not act against
Himself, against His own laws5, and that in truth He did not send Jesus as a sin offering—neither
in one way nor in any other!

But what was then the purpose of Jesu mission?

Jesus was sent to Earth to teach human beings to love the true God with all their heart, soul and mind,
and to love their neighbor as they love themselves; he was sent to Earth to teach mankind to live in mutual
peace and toleration; he was sent to Earth to liberate the Jewish people from the leaden bondage of Mosaic Law;
and he was sent to Earth in order as a human being, and if this were possible, to conceive compassion in
his loving heart for the spirit of Darkness called Satan by human beings, and by virtue of his compassion to pray for
his deliverance from the power of sin and Darkness.
It was the mission of Jesus, it was his ministry as the Messiah, to teach human beings the Fatherly
nature of God, and through his prayer of compassion and love to break the power of Darkness
over the fallen brother, to soften his spiteful and defiant heart and to bring him back to the Fatherly
Home, and in this way remove the hindrance that for countless ages had obstructed the road which
leads to an understanding of God as the loving, mild and compassionate Father, whose exalted nature, purity and
perfection cannot be expressed in human words nor formed by human thought.
Jesus was not able to pray for the Prince and Servant of Darkness, and nor did he, for this reason
fully succeed in completing his task. His fallen brother fought against him. And human beings did not
understand him! In their blind hatred of him who spoke against the old traditions, and in their callow
folly of refusing to learn the new, they scorned, mocked and condemned him who sought to bring them
nearer to their God and Father, who sought to teach them to become purer, more loving and less belligerent.
And as a breaker of law he was condemned to die upon the cross! The Council condemned him, the
priests condemned him—the people condemned him!
Human beings themselves delivered him unto death!”

Finally, the writer turns directly to his readers:

“I, who once lived among human beings as Saul of Tarsus, have lately returned home
from a new earthly life among you. Upon my return our Father bade me to remove the
cornerstone from under the House that you, the human beings, have built upon my
presumptuous interpretation of the death of Jesus of Nazareth.
Still weak after the life recently ended, I asked our Father for help in carrying out this task,
and some of my brothers accompanied me to the human being who acts as an intermediary
between us and you. With the help of my brothers—for they have strengthened and clarified
my thoughts—I have now fulfilled the task which our Father bade me to do.
May you become seeing and follow my words! But one thing you should know: that which I
did in the past, I did because I loved Jesus of Nazareth from the depth of my heart. I would
make him greater than he was. Pray forgive me; for I acted out of love.
But you who love our brother as I do, heed my words and hasten to make good both mine
and your own transgressions that our Father's Message may bear rich fruit. Our Father will thank

5
In the present context particular emphasis is on the law / commandment: “Thou shalt not kill”.

6
you, our brother will thank you, and I, who once was Saul of Tarsus, will thank you with all
my heart, all my mind and all my soul!”

Ergo we are still waiting for the final reformation. Therefore, we should not celebrate
too much, neither Easter nor the 500th. anniversary of the protestant reformation. The
truth is still before us—and it will be much greater than anybody expects.

References:
Apart from the writings and sources mentioned in the text above I have drawn on the following works6:
[Flere forf.]: Gads danske bibelleksikon I-II, red. v. Eduard Nielsen & Bent Noack, København, G.E.C. Gads
Forlag 1965, (især opslagene om hhv. påske, påskelam og offer)
[Gad’s Danish Dictionary of the Bible vol. I-II, Copenhagen 1965)
Ditlef Nielsen: Den historiske Jesus. Aschehoug, København 1924
[--The Historical Jesus, Copenhagen 1924]
Fredrik Nielsen: Haandbog i Kirkens Historie, Bind 1: Oldkirken, København 1885 (1. udgave) Bind 2:
Middelalderen, København 1892 (1. udgave) Karl Schønbergs Forlag
[--Handbook of the History of the Church, vol. 1: The Early Church; vol. 2: The Middle Ages
Hal Koch: Konstantin den store, Gyldendal, København 1969
[--Constantine the Great, Copenhagen 1969]
Jørgen Fafner: Oldkirkelig retorik, intern publikation fra Institut for Retorik, Københavns Universitet 1993
[--Rhetoric of the Early Church, internal publication from The Department of Rhetoric at The University
of Copenhagen 1993]

6
The English titles on my list of references are merely translations of the Danish titles meant to inform
readers who don’t speak Danish about the content of these works; they are NOT meant to indicate that
translations of these Danish works are available in English.