Truth or Fable?

[Sahansdal]

Kelyn-
I like to look at history from differing angles in order to get a more well-rounded picture of the issues. But, you are right that the work is very confusing. The author claims to be a Christian but his approach to Judas is openly anti-Biblical and his tone mocks the basic tenets of the faith. It does not help that one of this two "experts" was a convict (pedophile) at the time of publication. To even remotely imagine that Judas is who this book proclaims him to be negates every word that Jesus said about himself. It requires a certain amount of mental gymnastics in order to make sense of the fundamental break between 2nd century Christianity and the Gnostic movement.

Huh? Who are you saying is a pedophile? -the Author

[Lisa A Rayburn]

I think it's always interesting to see things from multiple sides. It's nice to think there was an ulterior motive but I didn't really understand where he was coming from with it, it was a bit confusing. Then again I'm not that familiar with the story in the first place, so maybe I need to reread the original story again

I think seeing things from multiple perspectives helps us hone our own perspective and opinions about issues. Yes, I agree parts of the book were indeed confusing. It does help somewhat knowing the original story and it does help to be able to compare and contrast the two versions. The author is here in the forum with us and has suggested a book or two that might help if you wanted to go that far in investigating it. Thanks so much for stopping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

Kelyn-
I like to look at history from differing angles in order to get a more well-rounded picture of the issues. But, you are right that the work is very confusing. The author claims to be a Christian but his approach to Judas is openly anti-Biblical and his tone mocks the basic tenets of the faith. It does not help that one of this two "experts" was a convict (pedophile) at the time of publication. To even remotely imagine that Judas is who this book proclaims him to be negates every word that Jesus said about himself. It requires a certain amount of mental gymnastics in order to make sense of the fundamental break between 2nd century Christianity and the Gnostic movement.

Me too. As I said (above), I think that seeing things from more than one perspective helps to hone our own. I'm glad I wasn't the only one who found it confusing! For a bit, I thought I was just being obtuse because I'm not a Bible scholar. I read the book mostly out of curiosity. The author, who has actually been in and out of the forum for the past few days, terms himself a 'Mystic'. This is not necessarily synonymous with 'Christian'. I did not know that tidbit about his source, thank you for sharing it with us. My 'mental gymnastics' skills are indeed being tested to the limit with this thread and I'm still not sure I have the difference between Gnosticism and Christianity pinned down. Never in a million years did I think this thread would blow up the way it has!! Thank you so much for stopping in and sharing your thoughts!!

[Sahansdal]

I wonder, is the fuel to this discussion fire, as it were, coming from a place of dedication to one's religion, was the book really that poorly researched and put together in the eyes of the audience, or is it due to something else entirely?

I can only speak for myself. I have no religious bias for or against. I respect everyone's religious beliefs until they are put into book form. I treated this book like I did Lee Strobel's apologetics books. Like I do with any book of Religious history. I can read the Bible or Homer and suspend my disbelief, but if you write a book about the Bible or Homer make sure you got your facts together. His inspiration is Eisenman's book on James which has some wonderful insight. There is no doubt that Stephen who is martyred in Acts is a substitute for James. When you see the clues its undeniable. The beloved disciple when you see the clues is obviously James. I have no problem with the idea in general but when Eisenman claims that Judas is James, He is just guessing. Misreading Judas starts with these guesses and doubles down on the idea . The motives of the Christians wanting to erase James are clear, James competes with them. The word antichrists was coined for those who left the roman church to go back to Jerusalem and the teachings of James. But the Gnostics loved James and couldn't have cared less what Rome thought of them so why disguise james at all? Why disguise him as Judas? When Jesus is asked in the gospel of Thomas to whom should they go after Jesus dies he answers "You are to go to James , for whom the heavens and the Earth came together" Why doesn't the Gospel of Thomas, feel the need to disguise. Theres a phrase attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli when "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'." Thats what I think about this book, 'It is not even wrong'. I dont say it with malice but it is a singularly bad book

jrinc,
I don't know if I said this before, but I don't say Eisenman says flat-out that Judas was James. He doesn't think that. He just pointed out that he covers him in Acts 1. I find it strange that with so much covering going on, he didn't make a stronger connection. It really explains his findings better if Judas was James. And the Gnostics had every reason to hide from the Roman Church. They were afraid of the Paulines, who killed James. gThomas is an interesting exception. Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. Even if you didn't like it, I appreciate your thought-provoking commentary.

[Sahansdal]

I think it's always interesting to see things from multiple sides. It's nice to think there was an ulterior motive but I didn't really understand where he was coming from with it, it was a bit confusing. Then again I'm not that familiar with the story in the first place, so maybe I need to reread the original story again

I think seeing things from multiple perspectives helps us hone our own perspective and opinions about issues. Yes, I agree parts of the book were indeed confusing. It does help somewhat knowing the original story and it does help to be able to compare and contrast the two versions. The author is here in the forum with us and has suggested a book or two that might help if you wanted to go that far in investigating it. Thanks so much for stopping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

Kelyn-
I like to look at history from differing angles in order to get a more well-rounded picture of the issues. But, you are right that the work is very confusing. The author claims to be a Christian but his approach to Judas is openly anti-Biblical and his tone mocks the basic tenets of the faith. It does not help that one of this two "experts" was a convict (pedophile) at the time of publication. To even remotely imagine that Judas is who this book proclaims him to be negates every word that Jesus said about himself. It requires a certain amount of mental gymnastics in order to make sense of the fundamental break between 2nd century Christianity and the Gnostic movement.

Me too. As I said (above), I think that seeing things from more than one perspective helps to hone our own. I'm glad I wasn't the only one who found it confusing! For a bit, I thought I was just being obtuse because I'm not a Bible scholar. I read the book mostly out of curiosity. The author, who has actually been in and out of the forum for the past few days, terms himself a 'Mystic'. This is not necessarily synonymous with 'Christian'. I did not know that tidbit about his source, thank you for sharing it with us. My 'mental gymnastics' skills are indeed being tested to the limit with this thread and I'm still not sure I have the difference between Gnosticism and Christianity pinned down. Never in a million years did I think this thread would blow up the way it has!! Thank you so much for stopping in and sharing your thoughts!!

Kelyn,
The moderators haven't yet posted it, but I ask just who this is that is a convicted pedophile that is one of my experts. I certainly want to know, if this is true!

The "difference" between Gnosticism and Christianity is that one is true and the other is a false inversion. I think you know which is which, from my book and comments here.

[Manogna Thumukunta]

I don't know how much of it is true or how much is fiction but i think the book did not change any of my beliefs drastically . I still believe in the same things i've been believing in for years.

[Charlie19]

I do not know yet, I am kind of confused with the arguments in the book. It does not answer my questions about religion.

[Wambui-nj]

Everything about this book is controversial and so is religion. No one can claim to have all the information about things that happened thousands of years ago...that is, if they ever did. Well, the author has done his research and is entitled to his opinion and so is everyone else. In my opinion, I would call it a fable....the author doesn't convince me.

[Sahansdal]

I do not know yet, I am kind of confused with the arguments in the book. It does not answer my questions about religion.

This is my second book. It is easier to start with the first. https://www.amazon.com/Bible-says-Savio ... ler+robert

[Lisa A Rayburn]

Everything about this book is controversial and so is religion. No one can claim to have all the information about things that happened thousands of years ago...that is, if they ever did. Well, the author has done his research and is entitled to his opinion and so is everyone else. In my opinion, I would call it a fable....the author doesn't convince me.

I agree with you on both points. Knowing everything that happened thousands of years ago is not possible, no matter how many manuscripts are found. And everyone is, indeed, entitled to their own opinion. Thanks so much for stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!

[Jimi Adewole]

The book is complete nonsense without any redeeming value as a work of scholarship. Consider the following: The author begins by analysing the phrase anaphasis logos meaning the unspoken word, which he assures us conventional scholars cant understand because they arent trained in mysticism. He then quotes a Hindu swami at length to try to explain it. Now by conventional scholar he means Dr Elaine Pagels, who wrote one of the earliest commentaries on the Gospel of Judas. She is an atheist, female PHd in Early Christianity, one of the least conventional New Testament scholars who is publishing today and one of only a handful of American scholars fluent in Coptic, the language that most of the gnostic texts are written in. A book outlining how Hindu mysticism influenced the Gnostic authors would be interesting but there are none because Hinduism had no influence at all on the Gnostics which makes most of the first chapter irrelevant and unsubstantiated conjecture. Besides this there is actually a long tradition of Jewish Mysticism that actually did influence the gnostics and Dr Pagels is more than familiar with it. The author is way out of his depth on this book.

I would agree if I knew all the stuff you've discussed here! It mostly felt strung up rather than thoroughly researched. As though events and texts were construed intentionally to arrive at a particular conclusion.

[Sahansdal]

The book is complete nonsense without any redeeming value as a work of scholarship. Consider the following: The author begins by analysing the phrase anaphasis logos meaning the unspoken word, which he assures us conventional scholars cant understand because they arent trained in mysticism. He then quotes a Hindu swami at length to try to explain it. Now by conventional scholar he means Dr Elaine Pagels, who wrote one of the earliest commentaries on the Gospel of Judas. She is an atheist, female PHd in Early Christianity, one of the least conventional New Testament scholars who is publishing today and one of only a handful of American scholars fluent in Coptic, the language that most of the gnostic texts are written in. A book outlining how Hindu mysticism influenced the Gnostic authors would be interesting but there are none because Hinduism had no influence at all on the Gnostics which makes most of the first chapter irrelevant and unsubstantiated conjecture. Besides this there is actually a long tradition of Jewish Mysticism that actually did influence the gnostics and Dr Pagels is more than familiar with it. The author is way out of his depth on this book.

I would agree if I knew all the stuff you've discussed here! It mostly felt strung up rather than thoroughly researched. As though events and texts were construed intentionally to arrive at a particular conclusion.

The one who is out of his depth isn't me, but the writer of this post you reply to. It is APOphasis Logos, first of all, and it means "Word which is said without speaking." The Apo is "without." Phasis is "speaking." Charan Singh isn't "a Hindu Swami" but a Sikh by birth Sant Sat Guru of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas. Elaine Pagels is not an atheist, but a lifelong Christian. I have personally spoken to her by phone. She read an early draft of my first book (not this one) and said favorable thins about it, but not to quote her, so I won't. I never said "Hinduism influenced the Gnostics" but that their teachings are essentially the same, and one can shed light on the other. It would be nice if commenters would not twist things I say.

[kmwarren20]

While it is interesting to consider alternate viewpoints, this book does not change my original opinion of Judas.

[Sahansdal]

While it is interesting to consider alternate viewpoints, this book does not change my original opinion of Judas.

Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!

Kelyn,
Scott just accepted the book again for BOTD, September 27th! Yea. This time, the excerpt will be book text, not merely frontice-piece reviews. I got 19% intend to read it on Top10 even so, last time...

[Lisa A Rayburn]

Kelyn,
Scott just accepted the book again for BOTD, September 27th! Yea. This time, the excerpt will be book text, not merely frontice-piece reviews. I got 19% intend to read it on Top10 even so, last time...

I think that's a good move. Just having the reviews in the sample wasn't very helpful (no offense intended) in deciding whether or not to read the book. Maybe your "intend to read" will go up!! Good luck!

[jlrinc]

I wonder, is the fuel to this discussion fire, as it were, coming from a place of dedication to one's religion, was the book really that poorly researched and put together in the eyes of the audience, or is it due to something else entirely?

I can only speak for myself. I have no religious bias for or against. I respect everyone's religious beliefs until they are put into book form. I treated this book like I did Lee Strobel's apologetics books. Like I do with any book of Religious history. I can read the Bible or Homer and suspend my disbelief, but if you write a book about the Bible or Homer make sure you got your facts together. His inspiration is Eisenman's book on James which has some wonderful insight. There is no doubt that Stephen who is martyred in Acts is a substitute for James. When you see the clues its undeniable. The beloved disciple when you see the clues is obviously James. I have no problem with the idea in general but when Eisenman claims that Judas is James, He is just guessing. Misreading Judas starts with these guesses and doubles down on the idea . The motives of the Christians wanting to erase James are clear, James competes with them. The word antichrists was coined for those who left the roman church to go back to Jerusalem and the teachings of James. But the Gnostics loved James and couldn't have cared less what Rome thought of them so why disguise james at all? Why disguise him as Judas? When Jesus is asked in the gospel of Thomas to whom should they go after Jesus dies he answers "You are to go to James , for whom the heavens and the Earth came together" Why doesn't the Gospel of Thomas, feel the need to disguise. Theres a phrase attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli when "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'." Thats what I think about this book, 'It is not even wrong'. I dont say it with malice but it is a singularly bad book

jrinc,
I don't know if I said this before, but I don't say Eisenman says flat-out that Judas was James. He doesn't think that. He just pointed out that he covers him in Acts 1. I find it strange that with so much covering going on, he didn't make a stronger connection. It really explains his findings better if Judas was James. And the Gnostics had every reason to hide from the Roman Church. They were afraid of the Paulines, who killed James. gThomas is an interesting exception. Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. Even if you didn't like it, I appreciate your thought-provoking commentary.

If they were afraid of the Pauline Church the last thing they would do is write a gospel that has the other disciples look like fools and the wise one being Judas the one they blame for betraying Jesus. There is no benefit by changing James to Judas in the eyes of the orthodox church. The fact is that gThomas is not an outlier. In every gnostics text in which James is named he takes an outsized role in the leadership. There is no other gnostics text that hides James as someone else. My guess is that Judas may be Thomas. Thomas simply means twin. His actual name is Jude and the early church might have gotten mad that he Thomas pointed new disciples to James instead of the petrine church in Rome.