OnlineBookClub.org

AntoineOMEGA wrote: ↑12 Jul 2019, 08:56 Judas was the traitor most know him as.

No, he wasn't. Did you read what I said about it? - the Author

AntoineOMEGA wrote: ↑12 Jul 2019, 08:56 Judas was the traitor most know him as.

Sahansdal wrote: ↑12 Jul 2019, 10:51

AntoineOMEGA wrote: ↑12 Jul 2019, 08:56 Judas was the traitor most know him as.

No, he wasn't. Did you read what I said about it? - the Author

Thank you both for your thoughts. However, this argument of "Is not", "Is too" can go on for infinity if further elaboration on both sides remains absent.

Kelyn wrote: ↑12 Jul 2019, 23:29

AntoineOMEGA wrote: ↑12 Jul 2019, 08:56 Judas was the traitor most know him as.

Sahansdal wrote: ↑12 Jul 2019, 10:51

AntoineOMEGA wrote: ↑12 Jul 2019, 08:56 Judas was the traitor most know him as.

No, he wasn't. Did you read what I said about it? - the Author

Thank you both for your thoughts. However, this argument of "Is not", "Is too" can go on for infinity if further elaboration on both sides remains absent.

I was waiting for the start flag. It's really very simple. Just compare the First and Second Apocalypses of James from Nag Hammadi, line-for-line with the Matthew/Mark/Luke/John 'Betrayal of Christ' scene. Matt. 26/Mark 14/Luke 22/John 13.

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/1ja.html
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/2ja.html

I do it exhaustively in the book. It is the heart of the argument. No one can honestly say that, "the flesh is weak" ..... a "sign" .... the KISS .... 'armed multitudes seizing' .... Praying on a rock/garden ... stopping the prayer .... "Hail. BROTHER"/"Hail, Master" (showing gnostic original because of later virgin-birth orthodox doctrine) ... stripped and fleeing naked (rising naked in original gnostic version) ... 'receiving what is ordained for it'/'Thy will be done' ... again and again, over and over, and IN ORDER are not intimately related in a generational way. But: NO GNOSTIC WOULD EVER EVEN THINK TO BORROW FROM A STORY OF HUMAN SACRIFICE. (Just read what they say about it in the Gospel of Judas.) But the first/second century Church orthodoxy had every reason to twist the succession story of Nag Hammadi: > They had to rid the story of JAMES, the real savior that Dr. Eisenman says is the star of the show that the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed to him in his own incredible research on the Pesherim scrolls. He shows Paul and his friends actually KILLED James http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.v ... i.lxx.html

http://www.amazon.com/James-Brother-Jes ... pd_sim_b_2

This is real, bona-fide, honest-to-God History, not literature. The biblical Gospels ARE FICTION. They are not history. No Judas betrayed Jesus, and Jesus never died on any cross. All those crosses and all those millions of precious prayers for salvation through the centuries have been for naught. It is a hash reality, but reality nonetheless. I have a Congregational Church cross rising 60 feet right across the street. I would love to see the day it comes down and crosses never return to the sky or around the necks of the unwary. This is A STORY. The Gospel writers were trying to mold a story around a fictional narrative. The sacrifice is YOU, not Christ! Living Masters are here at all times to carry on the work (salvation IS by works!). rssb.org

If you STILL doubt, look at the last line of the Apocalypse of Peter: http://gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html
THIS is the origin of Peter's three denials of Jesus "in this night." It was originally about meditation and seeing inner vision of the Master. PETER is the one denied. The SAME m. o. that Eisenman found in the Scrolls regarding Paul's false blood salvation doctrine and its original story in the Essene writings of James (the Pesherim commentaries like Habbakuk) concerning blood purity observances AT QUMRAN. THREE reprovals (denials) IN THIS NIGHT. That isn't a coincidence. The orthodoxy was borrowing and inverting the gnostics' true story. It was all by design, and a nefarious one at that.

Sahansdal wrote: ↑12 Jul 2019, 04:58

Kelyn wrote: ↑12 Jul 2019, 00:24

Sahansdal wrote: ↑10 Jul 2019, 22:46

This is not true at all, Kelyn. Truth is one. I think even the Bible says as much. There is only one truth, and it is up to each of us to learn what it is. I think if you investigate, you will discover that the Path of the Masters is the Way. There is a Master in the New Testament. It is not absolutely clear just who it was who said those red-letter quotes, but I think it was James, and not Jesus. That is what prompted me to write two books. I think it is learn-able from the texts themselves.

Playing devil's advocate here - From what I've read (admittedly not a lot and probably not from the greatest of sources), over the course of history there have been far more polytheistic religions than monotheistic ones. When Christianity did take over (and yes, I do mean take over - this I have read quite a bit about) it was not by the choice of the people living there (wherever 'there' was at that moment). It was by force. In other words, the 'invading' Christians shoved their monotheistic religion down the throats of the culture they were invading, which in ancient terms was often polytheistic. What gave them that right? You absolutely cannot say that a 'loving' God would have wanted blood to be shed in his name, then or now. I cannot and will not believe that. So...who determines truth...those that have worshipped in a certain way for centuries or invaders (Christians) forcing their comparatively new religion on others? Or are there different, valid truths for each? Sorry, I'll put my soapbox away now.

Well, unfortunately, none of the above. This is why proper guidance is so important. The Word is the key. Word isn't the Bible. It is the Holy Spirit, and It/He/She incarnates repeatedly. Only the Master is truth: "Thy Word is truth." - John 17:17

Come see for yourself. www.Petalumaprogram.org or www.Fayettevilleprogram.org

Unfortunately, I won't be able to make either of those conferences. ... I had an entire philosophical/religious paragraph typed out but decided not to send it. Let's just say that I'm still not entirely convinced. I do value your thoughts and opinions, however. It makes me think a bit more deeply about things. So, thank you.

Kelyn wrote: ↑13 Jul 2019, 01:08

Sahansdal wrote: ↑12 Jul 2019, 04:58

Kelyn wrote: ↑12 Jul 2019, 00:24

Playing devil's advocate here - From what I've read (admittedly not a lot and probably not from the greatest of sources), over the course of history there have been far more polytheistic religions than monotheistic ones. When Christianity did take over (and yes, I do mean take over - this I have read quite a bit about) it was not by the choice of the people living there (wherever 'there' was at that moment). It was by force. In other words, the 'invading' Christians shoved their monotheistic religion down the throats of the culture they were invading, which in ancient terms was often polytheistic. What gave them that right? You absolutely cannot say that a 'loving' God would have wanted blood to be shed in his name, then or now. I cannot and will not believe that. So...who determines truth...those that have worshipped in a certain way for centuries or invaders (Christians) forcing their comparatively new religion on others? Or are there different, valid truths for each? Sorry, I'll put my soapbox away now.

Well, unfortunately, none of the above. This is why proper guidance is so important. The Word is the key. Word isn't the Bible. It is the Holy Spirit, and It/He/She incarnates repeatedly. Only the Master is truth: "Thy Word is truth." - John 17:17

Come see for yourself. www.Petalumaprogram.org or www.Fayettevilleprogram.org

Unfortunately, I won't be able to make either of those conferences. ... I had an entire philosophical/religious paragraph typed out but decided not to send it. Let's just say that I'm still not entirely convinced. I do value your thoughts and opinions, however. It makes me think a bit more deeply about things. So, thank you.

I was responding as you were also, Kelyn. Did you see above?

This is simple. When it comes to the Bible, it becomes a personal issue therefore, it is a relative decision as to whether the author's attempts are valid or not. Only the reader can decide what is believable or not in this sense.

Samisah wrote: ↑14 Jul 2019, 12:15 This is simple. When it comes to the Bible, it becomes a personal issue therefore, it is a relative decision as to whether the author's attempts are valid or not. Only the reader can decide what is believable or not in this sense.

*thunderous applause* Thank you so much for coming and sharing that thought with us!!

Challenging or putting foward any opinion that assumes to challenge anything from the ancient book is really a tall order.The author of misreading Judas was not convincing in his claims, l don't know why he felt he had to write on such unquantifiable claims.

JPalomares wrote: ↑22 May 2019, 21:51 I agree with jlrinc and freakkshowx. The author is out of his depth.

Perhaps the Gospel of Judas needs a champion, but this author is not speaking as a scholar, but as a devotee of a modern religion. Any plausible defense of an ancient document needs to come along with an understanding of its place in history.

Think of it this way - when an author makes an offhand allusion to a man in a tweed suit and deerstalker, bent over a magnifying glass, we can fairly safely assume the writer is speaking of Sherlock Holmes. Now, imagine this author's work is rediscovered after two-thousand years; 1,500, we'll say, after the desolation of the culture that produced it and after new cultures and nations have risen and fallen in its place. The offhand allusion survives, but what if the thing to which it was alluding did not? What if no record survived of the Greatest Detective and the London he inhabited? What if the inhabitants of this strange world of 4019 haven't the foggiest idea what in the blue blazes a deerstalker is? - I'd wager there are more than a few people today who couldn't pull that one out of their hat - and that's hardly at the distance of a single century.

My point being, we are at a distance of close enough to two thousand years from the creation of this document; have little understanding of the context - the people, time, and pressures that produced it; and we don't even have a copy of it in its original language (the author, himself, relying on a translation of a translation).

So, to address the question of the book: Was Judas 'Savior' or 'Betrayer'? First (or maybe not even first), we have to discuss whether Jesus was fully human, fully human and a Prophet, half-human-half-God, fully-human-And-fully-God, a spirit with no physical body, a spirit inhabiting a physical body, or something else entirely - all of which were actual, recorded beliefs from the early centuries of Christ-centric religions (look into the Christological Controversies - it's interesting stuff). We also have to discuss whether 'Christ' and 'Jesus' are one and the same or separate entities. The ancient Gnostics tended towards the 'fully spirit' (Christ) or possession models (Christ in Jesus) while what became mainline Christianity eventually established the doctrine of his being fully-human-And-fully-God (and, incidentally, that Jesus and Christ are one and the same). After that, we can debate whether delivering a fully mortal man to be killed could be called 'saving' and whether a spirit can be betrayed to death.

By which I mean; it's complicated.

Honestly You stated each and everything that I thought about. Its very complicated and at times I wanted to put the book away from the reach of humanity

Annabelle Higgins wrote: ↑16 Jun 2019, 22:46 This author has gone slightly off topic to this book with his references to numerous people who don't really have any idea about this. For someone who might be Christian, some of these references don't make any sense. Also, the fact that he hasn't chosen the Bible as his main reference also undermines how reliable this book is.

I doubt people like you even read it. The whole idea is that one cannot understand a book's place in the scheme of things without looking at similar genre period writings! That is what I did and I proved that there is a dependent relationship that indicts the New Testament.

SavannaEGoth wrote: ↑23 May 2019, 17:43 I am honestly wary about labeling anything in a relgious text or relating to a story within as fact at all, so I apologize if I sound biased, but although I like the unqiue take on the situation and admire the amount of work put into writing the book I don't think this take on the events of Judas' "betrayal" is any more credible than the original bible story itself. If I absolutely had to choose one to stand by, however, I might favor the scenario set up by the author. I enjoy giving characters/people the benefit of the doubt and seeings things from different points of view. There's a reason behind every "fall from grace," as it were. Every antagonist has a backstory and a motivation.

Savanna,

Would you consider a review for me on Amazon?

JPalomares wrote: ↑22 May 2019, 21:51 I agree with jlrinc and freakkshowx. The author is out of his depth.

Perhaps the Gospel of Judas needs a champion, but this author is not speaking as a scholar, but as a devotee of a modern religion. Any plausible defense of an ancient document needs to come along with an understanding of its place in history.

Think of it this way - when an author makes an offhand allusion to a man in a tweed suit and deerstalker, bent over a magnifying glass, we can fairly safely assume the writer is speaking of Sherlock Holmes. Now, imagine this author's work is rediscovered after two-thousand years; 1,500, we'll say, after the desolation of the culture that produced it and after new cultures and nations have risen and fallen in its place. The offhand allusion survives, but what if the thing to which it was alluding did not? What if no record survived of the Greatest Detective and the London he inhabited? What if the inhabitants of this strange world of 4019 haven't the foggiest idea what in the blue blazes a deerstalker is? - I'd wager there are more than a few people today who couldn't pull that one out of their hat - and that's hardly at the distance of a single century.

My point being, we are at a distance of close enough to two thousand years from the creation of this document; have little understanding of the context - the people, time, and pressures that produced it; and we don't even have a copy of it in its original language (the author, himself, relying on a translation of a translation).

So, to address the question of the book: Was Judas 'Savior' or 'Betrayer'? First (or maybe not even first), we have to discuss whether Jesus was fully human, fully human and a Prophet, half-human-half-God, fully-human-And-fully-God, a spirit with no physical body, a spirit inhabiting a physical body, or something else entirely - all of which were actual, recorded beliefs from the early centuries of Christ-centric religions (look into the Christological Controversies - it's interesting stuff). We also have to discuss whether 'Christ' and 'Jesus' are one and the same or separate entities. The ancient Gnostics tended towards the 'fully spirit' (Christ) or possession models (Christ in Jesus) while what became mainline Christianity eventually established the doctrine of his being fully-human-And-fully-God (and, incidentally, that Jesus and Christ are one and the same). After that, we can debate whether delivering a fully mortal man to be killed could be called 'saving' and whether a spirit can be betrayed to death.

By which I mean; it's complicated.

J Palomares,

It isn't "complicated." The question isn't "Was Judas savior or Betrayer?" The question is how did scholars miss that Judas is the sacrifice? One need not discuss any of the things you mentioned. Just compare the gnostic texts to the Gospels. Judas obviously is James, inverted tendentiously. The orthodoxy created an entirely new false religion at the expense of the Gnostics. I really don't see how people can miss this! I point it out on every page. Gnostics first; orthodox Gospel second, and inverted tendentiously. It is the same as Dr. Eisenman found in the Scrolls Pesherim.

Sahansdal wrote: ↑16 Jul 2019, 11:15

SavannaEGoth wrote: ↑23 May 2019, 17:43 I am honestly wary about labeling anything in a relgious text or relating to a story within as fact at all, so I apologize if I sound biased, but although I like the unqiue take on the situation and admire the amount of work put into writing the book I don't think this take on the events of Judas' "betrayal" is any more credible than the original bible story itself. If I absolutely had to choose one to stand by, however, I might favor the scenario set up by the author. I enjoy giving characters/people the benefit of the doubt and seeings things from different points of view. There's a reason behind every "fall from grace," as it were. Every antagonist has a backstory and a motivation.

Savanna,

Would you consider a review for me on Amazon?

I may. I would prefer to write a review on here first and foremost.

I think it was fable

SavannaEGoth wrote: ↑16 Jul 2019, 18:53

Sahansdal wrote: ↑16 Jul 2019, 11:15

SavannaEGoth wrote: ↑23 May 2019, 17:43 I am honestly wary about labeling anything in a relgious text or relating to a story within as fact at all, so I apologize if I sound biased, but although I like the unqiue take on the situation and admire the amount of work put into writing the book I don't think this take on the events of Judas' "betrayal" is any more credible than the original bible story itself. If I absolutely had to choose one to stand by, however, I might favor the scenario set up by the author. I enjoy giving characters/people the benefit of the doubt and seeings things from different points of view. There's a reason behind every "fall from grace," as it were. Every antagonist has a backstory and a motivation.

Savanna,

Would you consider a review for me on Amazon?

I may. I would prefer to write a review on here first and foremost.

Great! If you have any questions, ask me here or look into https://judaswasjames.com/