Does the book change your religeous beliefs?

[Ferdinand_Otieno]

From the blurb, editorial reviews, and a sample of the book I read, I didn't even want to read the full narrative because I thought the arguments put by the author could cause a lot of emotional disturbances in my mind, so there wasn't any need to grab a copy.

Playing it safe

[tanner87cbs]

The book seeks to change the normal belief of Judas as the traitor and makes him to have made the ultimate sacrifice. Does the book change or even shake your religeous beliefs?

This book had no impact on my beliefs. It did, however, have an impact on me on how I observe the gnostic gospels. Previously I had not spent much time and thought they were just non-inspired "lifeway" Christian books of their day. I see that was a miscalculation on my part.

[Bluecobia]

This book is one person's thoughts. It did not affect my beliefs at all .

[Ferdinand_Otieno]

The book seeks to change the normal belief of Judas as the traitor and makes him to have made the ultimate sacrifice. Does the book change or even shake your religeous beliefs?

This book had no impact on my beliefs. It did, however, have an impact on me on how I observe the gnostic gospels. Previously I had not spent much time and thought they were just non-inspired "lifeway" Christian books of their day. I see that was a miscalculation on my part.

It's always good to gain something from every single book you read.

[Jlbaird85]

Not at all. I am a Christian and one author’s interpretation of a start in the Bible does nothing to change my beliefs about it. I also have not read the book because after reading the review, I found it would irritate me to read this author’s opinion of the story of Judas betraying Jesus.

[Ferdinand_Otieno]

I have read the bible and have a basic knowledge regarding Judas. Still, I think there can be unusual interpretations to the already known story, since the history is that something made by some fellow, who might have had favourations as well as his own dislikes

The fate ot history will always be open to interpretation and beliefs. The truth will always change based on what people want to believe.

[Ferdinand_Otieno]

Not at all. I am a Christian and one author’s interpretation of a start in the Bible does nothing to change my beliefs about it. I also have not read the book because after reading the review, I found it would irritate me to read this author’s opinion of the story of Judas betraying Jesus.

The fate ot history will always
be open to interpretation and
beliefs. The truth will always
change based on what people
want to believe.

[Artizi]

While I don't feel this book would change my religious views, given that I was raised a Christian but don't currently follow the faith, I find it quite an interesting interpretation from a theoretical perspective.

[magnoparisi]

I don't think so. I was raised a catholic but i don't have any problems reading books that express views opposed to Christianity. I fully support the first amendment in principle. That said, Misreading Judas is basically a Dan Brown thesis and there is no evidence to support his thesis. Anyway, i would rather read a mediocre book than waste time sitting around with people making small talk.

[Ferdinand_Otieno]

While I don't feel this book would change my religious views, given that I was raised a Christian but don't currently follow the faith, I find it quite an interesting interpretation from a theoretical perspective.

Very interesting perspective on a book that seeks to unravel the very definition of BETRAYAL as it pertains to the bible.

[KL9999]

No it doesn't. It only makes me want to dig deeper into the history of my spiritual beliefs and acknowledge that there are many versions and interpretations of a story.

[waltzashley]

No, it doesn't. I felt that the author supported his points poorly to begin with; the texts he presented seemed to be twisted or warped to fit with the point that he tried to make. Although I don't doubt that he himself believes the claims he advances, I didn't see the resounding "proof" that he does in his interpretation of the supplementary texts, especially since he relied so heavily on taking passages that made sense in literal form and making them into strained, slightly nonsensical metaphors in order to promote his views.

I know right?! He uses only one text to prove his point, and that text is incomplete!

[amandathebibliophile]

I consider myself an open-minded person and I’m generally comfortable with hearing out the other side of an argument. However, when it comes to religion, it’s going to take much more than a book (no matter how well written and convincing) to get me to change my mind.

[Ferdinand_Otieno]

No it doesn't. It only makes me want to dig deeper into the history of my spiritual beliefs and acknowledge that there are many versions and interpretations of a story.

That's a great position due to the book; not ignoring the presented information and also not subscribing to the new religious position.

[Ferdinand_Otieno]

I consider myself an open-minded person and I’m generally comfortable with hearing out the other side of an argument. However, when it comes to religion, it’s going to take much more than a book (no matter how well written and convincing) to get me to change my mind.

Thanks for participating.