OnlineBookClub.org

kdstrack wrote: ↑01 Jun 2019, 17:31 He does rely heavily on the apocryphal books, although he does reference other sources. There are clear reasons why these books were not included in the canon. The apocryphal books do not have the same weight and authority as the Bible.

What "authority"? The Church? God? Does anyone ever point out what 'authority' the Bible really has? It has none. It is literature. Read it for what it is, not what the Church wants you to think it is.

Wyland wrote: ↑03 Jun 2019, 03:38 He relies a lot on it because there is no where he tries to cross-reference to prove that this book is in harmony with the other books. I think this is further proof that there is something wrong with the book.

You evidently did read my book. The whole thing is a comparison of texts to show just the opposite: that the New Testament Gospels are outliers in comparison to informative texts, like the gnostic Nag Hammadi codices and modern Sant Mat, which do harmonize.

Stephanie Elizabeth wrote: ↑05 May 2019, 18:20 He definitely relies heavily on the gospel, but that isn't surprising seeing as he is trying to uncover information to the reader. I am still trying to wrap my head around this book!

If you have any questions, Stephanie, I'd be glad to answer them!

tanner87cbs wrote: ↑08 May 2019, 15:58

reneelu1998 wrote: ↑04 May 2019, 16:06 I noticed that the author starts right out (and throughout the entire book) relying heavily on the "Gospel of Judas" which is considered apocrypha by most people since it isn't included in the canonical Bible. Do you think the author relies too heavily on this one book of scripture?

Yes, I believe the author put too much emphasis on the fragments from the 'Gospel of Judas". No matter your believes, you cannot avoid the historical backing of the Bible. Specifically, the protestant bible which is comprised of 66 books. I don't believe there is much weight to the argument with trying to make these texts co-exist.

This is the author. The New Testament has no historical backing. It is fictional.

Uinto wrote: ↑15 May 2019, 07:09 Intrigue sells and the author uses this to his advantage. The fact that the majority of people have no idea about the existence of this book is a fertile ground for controversy.

This is the author. Equally intriguing is how blinded by personal religious bias the academic scholars are about this subject. If they had reported it correctly, everyone would know about it. Judas -- not Jesus! -- is the sacrifice of "the man who bears me" at the climax, and it is a SERIOUS problem for Christianity.

VernaVi wrote: ↑17 May 2019, 17:37 There is a lot of the bible that has been lost to history.That said, it doesn't mean the world should authenticate something like the Gospel of Judas(problematic and unverifiable when compared against the other Gospels).
Apocrypha has it's own set of problems all on it's own.
The Bible however, as it stands now, has been proven by science, archeology, and authenticated by comparing already historically verified texts from more than one source.
This was a great question.

I think you would have to substantiate that claim. The Gospels authenticated and verified? By what?

Washboard wrote: ↑23 May 2019, 23:18

A G Darr wrote: ↑05 May 2019, 16:44 I didn't have a problem with the author using apocrypha. There are a lot of books left out of the Bible. It is hard to say which books were left out because they are false and which were left out because they did not align with the Church's agenda. That is not to say I totally believe the "Gospel of Judas" is a true gospel, but I also do not completely discredit it.

I suspect the author would make the arguement that it is true gospel, and it was left out of the Bible because of the Church's agenda. But who knows for sure?

The author here. None of the "Gospels" is 'true' history, including Judas. But the sense of the narrative is for that one. The New Testament Gospels were intentionally misleading disinformation. That was the point of the book.

esp1975 wrote: ↑24 May 2019, 11:31 You cannot be a serious scholar of Christianity without reading Apocrypha. There were MANY gospels written. Only four were chosen to be in the cannon. Early Christian Popes and Bishops decided on the cannon (generally in the 4th Century CE). But even as late at the 8th Century CE, at the Second Council of Nicea, bits of the Christian religion were still be argued - I believe in the Sun (as opposed to Son), or I believe in John the Baptist (because if he could baptize Christ, should he be greater than Christ?).
As for the reliance of this book on the Gospel of Judas - well, yes. That's the whole point of the book. Much like with the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have no idea of the early Christian leaders had ever seen this Gospel, to choose to put it in the cannon or not. The whole purpose of this book was that with the discovery and translation of the Gospel of Judas in modern times, it should cause Biblical scholars to do a re-evaluation of their beliefs.
And while I think for those who are actually studying the Bible as history, that might be an argument that has merit. For those who deeply believe, there is always going to be able to be the argument that the Gospel of Judas, known or unknown at the time the cannon was being determined, is not in the Bible because God did not want it so.

This is the author. I don't believe God cares what humans write about Him. He has his own way of doing things. (rssb dot org)

Irenaeus, second century Lyon, France,, and Athanasius, fourth century Alexandria, Egypt, especially his Easter vestal letter of 387 CE, are usually set as the ones who decided the modern canon. It evolved, so it isn't easily assigned. Only living Masters are authoritative. No book is (except the ones these Masters write!). See the Sant Mat site cited above. Scienceofthesoul dot org is the website for writings from these modern mystic Masters (saviors).

I do have another book that goes into a lot of this: The Bible Says Saviors - Obadiah 1:21.

The author considers the scriptures of the gospel to reveal the hidden concepts and contexts. Most biblical written works mislead most people because they tend to leave out what is important.

Wyland wrote: ↑03 Jun 2019, 03:38 He relies a lot on it because there is no where he tries to cross-reference to prove that this book is in harmony with the other books. I think this is further proof that there is something wrong with the book.

How's that, Wyland? The entire concept is a comparison. That which could have been harmony is, in fact, inversion -- inversion of a gnostic original. Did you read it?

SorcPenz wrote: ↑26 May 2019, 15:09 That's a good point. By relying so much on the Gospel of Judas, he only convinces those who value that Gospel, not those who value the other gospels. I thought it was funny that he relied on Judas's own words to prove that Judas wasn't a betrayer. Of course a man would not write himself as the villain. I value all the Gospels out of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the newly discovered ones that have been less tainted from translations through multiple languages and edits. But even I saw the hypocrisy of relying on the accused's story to prove he was innocent all along.

Huh? This is the author. I didn't "rely on the accused's story" to show the New Testament is derived. I compared the gnostic texts to the canonical texts to show it. The story is not important. Covering James to remove him from history was.

I think it is an appropriate source to use, given that the owner demonstrates why it did not become "canon." However, I think the arguments could be strengthened to better target sceptics by using more "accepted" sources too.

Sahansdal wrote: ↑03 Jun 2019, 11:08

VernaVi wrote: ↑17 May 2019, 17:37 There is a lot of the bible that has been lost to history.That said, it doesn't mean the world should authenticate something like the Gospel of Judas(problematic and unverifiable when compared against the other Gospels).
Apocrypha has it's own set of problems all on it's own.
The Bible however, as it stands now, has been proven by science, archeology, and authenticated by comparing already historically verified texts from more than one source.
This was a great question.

I think you would have to substantiate that claim. The Gospels authenticated and verified? By what?

By Science. By Archaeology. By Historical documents that verify one another with their own proven authenticity. Great Question, thanks for your comments.

VernaVi wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 16:21

Sahansdal wrote: ↑03 Jun 2019, 11:08

VernaVi wrote: ↑17 May 2019, 17:37 There is a lot of the bible that has been lost to history.That said, it doesn't mean the world should authenticate something like the Gospel of Judas(problematic and unverifiable when compared against the other Gospels).
Apocrypha has it's own set of problems all on it's own.
The Bible however, as it stands now, has been proven by science, archeology, and authenticated by comparing already historically verified texts from more than one source.
This was a great question.

I think you would have to substantiate that claim. The Gospels authenticated and verified? By what?

By Science. By Archaeology. By Historical documents that verify one another with their own proven authenticity. Great Question, thanks for your comments.

Science and Archaeology verify the canon and not the gnostic texts? What sources are you reading? If you check, I am confident that the sources you are reading are apologetic in nature. Find the critical ones, even if you don't like to see them, and read those if you would learn the truth about these discoveries. Of the nine Advisory Committee members of National Geogrpahic Society's scholarly panel on the Gospel of Judas, only ONE was not affiliated in some way with Christendom. ONE. Francois Gaudard, a Coptic Egyptologist. All the rest, being Christian, or formerly so (Bart Ehrman), read the Gospel of Judas as a BIBLICAL text, which it most certainly IS NOT. It is an anti-biblical text. It is about personal mystic sacrifice, not martyrdom salvation.

Something else you should consider: the Nag Hammadi/Al Minya (Gospel of Judas) texts came pristine from the ground in the original text we now have. The canonical Gospels have been through extensive revision and corruption. I go into A LOT of the corruptions, and so does Bart Ehrman. You CANNOT rely on the Biblical texts. They are greatly compromised, and in some very crucial ways, such as John 9:4, for just one example. Interpretation is also flawed, when done by Christian scholars. As a practicing 'gnostic', or mystic, I can help sort it all out, and think that I have in many ways in my two books.

a9436 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2019, 11:09 I think it is an appropriate source to use, given that the owner demonstrates why it did not become "canon." However, I think the arguments could be strengthened to better target sceptics by using more "accepted" sources too.

This is the author, a9436. What sources might those be? The Dead Sea Scrolls are only out about 40 years now, and then only correctly contextualized by one scholar so far: Dr. Robert Eisenman. I am the first researcher to correctly contextualize the Gospel of Judas with Judas sacrificed -- not Jesus! -- and to point out that the details of the 'Betrayal of Christ' are inverted in the biblical narrative from the provably original mastership installation details of the First and Second Apocalypses of James. This just happened! Two thousand years is a long time to reverse things so suddenly and find support elsewhere. Scinceofthesoul.org is support. There are many titles there by real recent Masters, true saviors -- some of whom even speak English. What greater gift to discover than that one can actually SEE their Master IN PERSON (John 6:40)?