OnlineBookClub.org

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?

I think he does lean heavily on that gospel, but indicates that it was omitted from The Bible on purpose. He also points out discrepancies between some of the books of The Bible, as they show different accounts of what happened to Judas after "the betrayal".

Yes. I think Wahler only intends to use this story in particular because he wants to prove a point. Moreover, the point is that he believes that the Christian Faith short changed the real meaning of the Life of Judas because of what Christianity is supposed to be about all together. I think that he best explains himself, when he asks over and over, if the reader could just picture with him. I find that most times the Life of Judas causes penetration, instead of acceptance. The same inquisition should apply today. Most people are very accepting of what happens today, without a question and I find biblical questions to be just that, just questions. And I really do think that the author was good at making the point of that is what he has always believed. But my overall, opinion is that it's okay and acceptable to talk about apocrypha, per say.

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 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.

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!

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 must say, I agree with your point of view. I do believe the Apocrypha need to be examined and considered, as much as any other religious writings. It also has to be said that so much of the ‘truth’ is lost over time and in the translation, that it is impossible to know for sure what is correct. I guess that’s where one’s faith has to carry one through...

Bluebird03 wrote: ↑05 May 2019, 10:53 I think he does lean heavily on that gospel, but indicates that it was omitted from The Bible on purpose. He also points out discrepancies between some of the books of The Bible, as they show different accounts of what happened to Judas after "the betrayal".

I personally believe that the Gospel of Judas is the SOURCE of the Bible "Betrayal" and sacrifice of Jesus. They just substituted Judas for James, and even Jesus for James. There was certainly no Judas, and likely no Jesus, either. Too many facets of James are taken on by Judas and Jesus. It takes a lot of study, but comparing the gnostic Apocalypses of James and Peter to the canon make it pretty clear what happened. The Bible copied and INVERTED the gnostic succession story and made it into a story of betrayal. There was NO BETRAYAL. There was a succession dynamic. Masters come all the time.

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?

Not being "included in the canonical Bible" means nothing to veracity. Why put so much stock in a self-serving ("If anyone add to this book the plagues of God will be added unto him, and if anything removed, he will be removed from the Book of Life" or some such nonsense in the end of Revelation. Good grief!) collection as the New Testament. I make a clear distinction between the Old and New. Aside from the impossibility of a "NEW" testament, Ecc. 1:9, there are many problems with it. Do a thorough investigation of the Mythicists, like Richard Carrier, Robert Price, David Fitzgerald, and Earl Doherty. Any one of these demolishes the New Testament Gospels and letters as any kind of authority. Dr. Robert Eisenman is even more devastating, with his command of period (historical) sources. You MUST examine these arguments and familiarize yourself with this viewpoint before you can say the Bible is authoritative.

The information in the gnostic texts is VITAL to understanding the origins of the New Testament Gospels. You will see that they are the SOURCE of at least the "Betrayal of Christ" narrative. The whole message of blood salvation grew out of a tendentious reversal of Essene blood purity observances at Qumran, and the Betrayal is a similarly tendentious reversal of a gnostic mastership succession story. Did you read my book? I go into all this in detail.

Bluebird03 wrote: ↑05 May 2019, 10:53 I think he does lean heavily on that gospel, but indicates that it was omitted from The Bible on purpose. He also points out discrepancies between some of the books of The Bible, as they show different accounts of what happened to Judas after "the betrayal".

The Gospel of Judas was the opposite of the NT Gospels. In fact, they canonical Gospels may have been conceived to counter it. At least the central idea of the sacrifice of Judas. That was original and very early, I am sure. It was inverted in the canon to counter gnostic succession teaching. Masters come in succession, one after another, FOREVER. That is what THEY teach, not me.

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!

Try, James the Brother of Jesus, by Dr. Robert Eisenman, if you really want to stretch your head! He is the one who ended Christianity. Scholars treat this brilliant towering titan of scholarship with disdain, when they are not worthy to shine his shoes.

Putting more weight to a single source seems unfair in this sort of an encounter. Yet, it is considered as apocrypha because it is thrown away from the bible and we do not know whether it was a sincere action or some covert move

I have mixed feelings about the author's use of apocrypha in the books. As many of you have mentioned, many books were omitted from the Bible and if they are true works then it would be an injustice not to include them and use them as evidence to answer questions that many Christians have. On the other hand however, there is the possibility that these works were not inspired by God. In the case that this is true, it would make all his arguments equivalent to a house built upon sand.

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.

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 can only agree with you about the lost texts or truths that did not suit the agenda of the Church at different times of Christianity. Such as the story of Mary Magdalene and her place among the disciples, for example. I admire the author's decision to go with something less accepted and more controversial.