What is your take about the author?

[Sahansdal]

On is own Facebook page the author identifies himself as a "lifelong Christian." He is writing spiritual material so he should understand that his world view is entirely incompatible with Christianity, but he appears not to. I think he is trying very hard to make a name for himself in the gnostic world and is in way over his head.

Trying very hard ro make a name for himself while immune to the "turmoil" (20%) of readers of his book, unbelievable!!

I've taken a lot of abuse for writing this. If I could do it anonymously, I would. But someone has to do it. The material is here in our hands now, and it must be made known.

[Sahansdal]

On is own Facebook page the author identifies himself as a "lifelong Christian." He is writing spiritual material so he should understand that his world view is entirely incompatible with Christianity, but he appears not to. I think he is trying very hard to make a name for himself in the gnostic world and is in way over his head.

I think Gnosticism and the true Gospel are incompatible. Trying to explain somethings is almost similar to trying to swim in a big ocean. Some questions cannot be answered now.

On is own Facebook page the author identifies himself as a "lifelong Christian." He is writing spiritual material so he should understand that his world view is entirely incompatible with Christianity, but he appears not to. I think he is trying very hard to make a name for himself in the gnostic world and is in way over his head.

Trying very hard ro make a name for himself while immune to the "turmoil" (20%) of readers of his book, unbelievable!!

I've taken a lot of abuse for writing this. If I could do it anonymously, I would. But someone has to do it. The material is here in our hands now, and it must be made

On is own Facebook page the author identifies himself as a "lifelong Christian." He is writing spiritual material so he should understand that his world view is entirely incompatible with Christianity, but he appears not to. I think he is trying very hard to make a name for himself in the gnostic world and is in way over his head.

I think Gnosticism and the true Gospel are incompatible. Trying to explain somethings is almost similar to trying to swim in a big ocean. Some questions cannot be answered now.

This is the author. I disagree with all three of your statements, as you may suspect! Maybe a swim in a sea, like the Mediterranean.

[Verna Coy]

Judging by what this author wrote, and how he wants others to believe, I would say his is neither religious nor a Christian.
I would also go farther and say he didn't do a lot of study before writing this work because when a person studies the Bible or apocrypha, it invariably winds up becomes an in-depth comparison of verified works.
A person must have verification, and when a study begins it is a step by step progress that can only go forward as each step receives that verification, either by history, archeology, science..etc.
If the author had done this, he would have had some sort of proofs to offer the legitimize his opinion or conjecture.

[Sahansdal]

Judging by what this author wrote, and how he wants others to believe, I would say his is neither religious nor a Christian.
I would also go farther and say he didn't do a lot of study before writing this work because when a person studies the Bible or apocrypha, it invariably winds up becomes an in-depth comparison of verified works.
A person must have verification, and when a study begins it is a step by step progress that can only go forward as each step receives that verification, either by history, archeology, science..etc.
If the author had done this, he would have had some sort of proofs to offer the legitimize his opinion or conjecture.

It doesn't sound to me like you read my book. It is A TEXTUAL proof from an archaeological find. You compare and analyze texts, plural, side-by-side. When you find 24 parallel details inverted you have to ask "why?" No Gnostic would borrow from an orthodox story of human sacrifice. They abhorred that. I understand Gnosticism because I PRACTICE IT. The orthodox Gospel authors provably borrowed from the Gnostics. I explain how I know in more than a few instances. Sorry you missed it. The Bible is only Church propaganda. They wanted to hide James ('Judas'), the successor who IS known to history.

[Chrystal Oaks]

I think Wahler means well and believes in what he is saying. The question of whether I think he is religious or a christian is not for me to judge. The reaction of the church would probably be a figurative explosion or shunning. For certain, they wouldn't be quiet.

[Sahansdal]

I think Wahler means well and believes in what he is saying. The question of whether I think he is religious or a christian is not for me to judge. The reaction of the church would probably be a figurative explosion or shunning. For certain, they wouldn't be quiet.

I really could not care less what the Church thinks. The Church is the problem.

[elizaron878]

Given the overabundance of books in the market,he probably felt he had to write this controversial book,to make his mark.That said, Christianity is not a religion understood intellectually, but a spiritual one,best understood using spiritual faculties.

[Sahansdal]

Given the overabundance of books in the market,he probably felt he had to write this controversial book,to make his mark.That said, Christianity is not a religion understood intellectually, but a spiritual one,best understood using spiritual faculties.

Gee, thanks. I hope I 'made my mark' now. Sheesh, somebody wants to share a major breakthrough and this is the thanks you get.

[Maria-Goretti Amarachi Okechi - Catherine]

If the author is a Christian, I guess the church will consider him a traitor just like the man he wrote about. But personally I think the author is just indifferent about the whole thing and of course I don't believe he's a Christian.

[Abandoned_Account]

Having been raised in a Christian setting and subsequently leaving said setting for the close-mindedness and aversion to other points of view and scientific fact, I can't say a church would be super keen on this take of events. From my personal experience anything that challenges what they teach and/or are taught is blasphemy and innapropriate. If it paints anyone they like in a negative light or gives the "bad guy" the benefit of the doubt then it's just plain wrong in their eyes, and not worth discusisng. If you press them on it then you're only trying to cause trouble and insult them and their beliefs. It's incredibly irritating and hence why I have since left.

I want to clarify that I'm not saying everyone who is Christian or otherwise religious is like this, this is just what it's been in my experience.

[Sahansdal]

If the author is a Christian, I guess the church will consider him a traitor just like the man he wrote about. But personally I think the author is just indifferent about the whole thing and of course I don't believe he's a Christian.

I didn't write about a traitor. I wrote about James who was fictionalized and inverted as traitor Judas, to hide him.

[kdstrack]

The author puts his Christianity in doubt with statements like, "Judas essentially spiritually transforms into Messiah, supplanting Jesus." This denies that Jesus is the one and only Savior. "It is meditation that saves." "Salvation was through Gnosis." The author believes he can change Scripture, ex: "The Son of Man will be glorified in James, not in Jesus." "There is no trinity (loc. 1216) "The Son of Man is James - not Jesus nor Judas" (loc 1400). "Jesus didn't die for anyone, James was the real Savior" (loc 1704). These are just some of the outright denials of Jesus as the Savior and the Bible as God's Word. The author has made his position quite clear!

[Sahansdal]

The author puts his Christianity in doubt with statements like, "Judas essentially spiritually transforms into Messiah, supplanting Jesus." This denies that Jesus is the one and only Savior. "It is meditation that saves." "Salvation was through Gnosis." The author believes he can change Scripture, ex: "The Son of Man will be glorified in James, not in Jesus." "There is no trinity (loc. 1216) "The Son of Man is James - not Jesus nor Judas" (loc 1400). "Jesus didn't die for anyone, James was the real Savior" (loc 1704). These are just some of the outright denials of Jesus as the Savior and the Bible as God's Word. The author has made his position quite clear!

Yes, and I will gladly defend that position.

[Sahansdal]

I did a lot of study to arrive at my positions of James as Son of man in John 13, and that Jesus is likely as fictional as Judas. The New Testament is a coverup of peerless proportions, and since it's very collation. READ DR. ROBERT EISENMAN (All three of his books on James), AND BART EHRMAN (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture).

[InStoree]

The author had responded to my comment on LinkedIn by stating that the findings spell the end of Christianity. What nonsense!

Wow...just..wow. That is a bit presumptuous and insensitive of the author. I think it is admirable to be passionate about your findings and beliefs, but that doesn't mean you should be disrespectful or insensitive to the beliefs of others.

Sometimes, when we're drawn into a supposed life purpose, this dedication comes at the package with a pair of horse glasses and all we can see is the straight-ahead road. Maybe, this accessory played a role in his disrespectful comment? Not an excuse, of course! Anyway, his inappropriate behaviour, definitely, will not boost the end of Christianity.