Overall rating and opinion of "Misreading Judas" by Robert Wahler

[austenfan]

The book sounds rather controversial, and one wonders what the author's true intentions are.When all is said and done,matters of faith is like falling g in love.Deeply personal.

Yeah, I agree that religion is extremely personal. though there is food for thought in the book, one would be hesitant to callously accept this interpretation of Judas over the one that is portrayed of him, for generations.

[Sahansdal]

I did not complete reading this book. It is apparent the author did a lot of research on the topic however I do not go along with his ideas about Judas. I believe the account given in the Holy Bible is the true account of both Jesus and Judas. My opinion of research regarding anything written in the bible is research for more information in the bible! I am sure many others will not see it as I do, and that is fine, that is the beauty of freedom of speech! We are all free to voice our own opinions without saying who is right or who is wrong. I am sure overall the author did an excellent job in writing this book, it just didn't coincide with my beliefs so I chose not to finish it.

This is the author: I understand that this is the way most Christians believe. But it is a big mistake. If you only read believers' views you will never learn of opposing, possibly helpful information -- maybe better information than even what you found in the Bible! That, in fact, is the case here. I knew long before the gnostic and Dead Sea Scrolls texts came out that Jesus was not the savior. I used to think he was. Then I learned about the living Masters and read what THEY wrote about Jesus. I was amazed at how much better their teachings made sense of difficult problems. For me, the most troubling one was, What about those people who died before learning their even WAS a Jesus? Why were they born if they never had the chance to see their Master or even to hear of him?

Wouldn't your Christian experience be better if you could actually sit at the feet of your Master? That is, it turns out, exactly what God has in mind for you. There is never a time when the world is without a savior or Master. That is what they say, including the one quoted in John (who I believe was James). Jesus, or someone, said, "For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." - John 6:40. Notice anything peculiar? He says "SEE the Son." When did you "see" the Son? No one has, not today with eyes, in this life. And that's how he meant it. Just before in 6:36, he said they DID see him and DIDN'T believe. SO, he meant with eyes, not in your heart, or mind.

Your Master was intended to be living at the time you live. That is what Jesus was saying in John 9:4-5, and for no other reason. The original text, the Codex Sianiticus, 4th century most nearly complete text of the New Testament, says, "sent US," not "sent me." He was not excluding himself from the warning that we must all do our work while alive, because "night comes" -- death -- when 'NO ONE' can work. "AS LONG AS I am in the world, I am the Light of the world" follows, in 9:5 to make it crystal clear, that he can only work while IN the world!

Separate the red-letter words of the Master (whatever Master this was, he WAS a Master) from the narrative text. The text embedding the quotations is disinformation.

Masters are in the world ALWAYS. They don't need to sacrifice. Hosea 6:6 says God doesn't want sacrifice, but mercy. He would not sacrifice his own Son, with that verse in his Bible! Same with "NEW Testament" and "nothing NEW under the sun" in Ecclesiastes 1:9. Please agree that God is consistent, or should be, in his characterizing of his Son. Son means Spirit, not the man.

[Sahansdal]

The book sounds rather controversial, and one wonders what the author's true intentions are.When all is said and done,matters of faith is like falling g in love.Deeply personal.

Yeah, I agree that religion is extremely personal. though there is food for thought in the book, one would be hesitant to callously accept this interpretation of Judas over the one that is portrayed of him, for generations.

That is understandable. We only just learned of the Nag Hammadi Library in 1978, and the Gospel of Judas in 2006. Not even a generation.

[Verna Coy]

I read this book very carefully, and although my review has not been approved or published yet, I give it 2 out of 4 stars. It bases its conclusions on an area of Gnostic literature which has not been validated by physical evidence or scientific proof. It expects the reader to blindly accept the wild theories posed by the author, theories that become wilder as the book progresses.For instance, he casts doubt on whether Christ was himself or James. His asserts that James is also Judas, while at the same time, he also thinks that Jesus was Judas. These statements are more than confusing for the reader since, by now, the author has turned Jesus into James, and Judas into James, and then into Judas. It also claims that James was the source of the concept of the virgin birth. I was grateful for my extensive background of research and study in this particular subject. I needed every bit of it.
There is a reason that Gnostic writings weren't approved or included in the Bible, they don't cross-reference correctly with other proven biblical works and evidence. Although I won't be recommending this book to anyone, it is good that it sparks debate and interest.

Just so you know I wrote my post not reading yours and you stated a little more clearly the things that I found wrong with the book. Thank you.

Thank you! You made some very good points as well!

[Verna Coy]

I read this book very carefully, and although my review has not been approved or published yet, I give it 2 out of 4 stars. It bases its conclusions on an area of Gnostic literature which has not been validated by physical evidence or scientific proof. It expects the reader to blindly accept the wild theories posed by the author, theories that become wilder as the book progresses.For instance, he casts doubt on whether Christ was himself or James. His asserts that James is also Judas, while at the same time, he also thinks that Jesus was Judas. These statements are more than confusing for the reader since, by now, the author has turned Jesus into James, and Judas into James, and then into Judas. It also claims that James was the source of the concept of the virgin birth. I was grateful for my extensive background of research and study in this particular subject. I needed every bit of it.
There is a reason that Gnostic writings weren't approved or included in the Bible, they don't cross-reference correctly with other proven biblical works and evidence. Although I won't be recommending this book to anyone, it is good that it sparks debate and interest.

Interesting to read your thoughts on this, as I haven't yet read the book. I will ask you this, though: how much of the Bible is based on scientific evidence?

As I'm sure you are aware, the Bible isn't based on science, rather science has been used at later times (as well as historical physical evidence) to prove the truth of the Bible. Thanks for your comment!

[Sahansdal]

Am not reading this book. The Bible says nothing should be added or removed from the holy scriptures and this is an addition that is pretty much meaningless.

I am not adding anything.

[Sahansdal]

I haven't read this book. The title is really captivating. I feel Judas was chosen to betray Jesus. I did feel that if he was chosen, then wasn't he just fulfilling what he was chosen for. I would love to know the author's point of view and how the book comes together.

Please do read it. I hope you like it. Then tell me what you think!

[Clementbrightansah]

It is a great book although it's short, it present a precise but complete argument about the case of Judas . I love the author's view of argument, I'll rate this book 5 star . you should try read and you'll love it.

[Sahansdal]

It is a great book although it's short, it present a precise but complete argument about the case of Judas . I love the author's view of argument, I'll rate this book 5 star . you should try read and you'll love it.

Cool! Could you please consider adding that to my Amazon reviews? I could use some balance against the one-star folks.

[pixiestyx]

I haven't read the book yet, but I may give it a chance later. I'm not a huge fan of religious non-fiction, but from what I've read based on other people's opinions, it seems like this book will be controversial and open up some serious debates.

[Sahansdal]

I haven't read the book yet, but I may give it a chance later. I'm not a huge fan of religious non-fiction, but from what I've read based on other people's opinions, it seems like this book will be controversial and open up some serious debates.

I hope you do! I can answer any of your questions here.

[Sahansdal]

I read this book very carefully, and although my review has not been approved or published yet, I give it 2 out of 4 stars. It bases its conclusions on an area of Gnostic literature which has not been validated by physical evidence or scientific proof. It expects the reader to blindly accept the wild theories posed by the author, theories that become wilder as the book progresses.For instance, he casts doubt on whether Christ was himself or James. His asserts that James is also Judas, while at the same time, he also thinks that Jesus was Judas. These statements are more than confusing for the reader since, by now, the author has turned Jesus into James, and Judas into James, and then into Judas. It also claims that James was the source of the concept of the virgin birth. I was grateful for my extensive background of research and study in this particular subject. I needed every bit of it.
There is a reason that Gnostic writings weren't approved or included in the Bible, they don't cross-reference correctly with other proven biblical works and evidence. Although I won't be recommending this book to anyone, it is good that it sparks debate and interest.

I got the bit about James and virgin birth from Dr. Robert Eisenman. Can't take credit for that. Not sure why my replies are not being approved. This is my second or third on this post. You say you read it carefully, so I want to reply to you carefully. I think 'Jesus' was a composite character constructed from the details of the lives of real people, James and John the Baptist. Judas and Jesus were not real people. Many other characters, like Lazarus, Stephen and James Zebedee function to hide James. The New Testament is creative writing, with just enough reality to make passable as history to the unwary. I was once taken in myself.

[Adedayo+23]

I like theories that challenge popular belief systems. Blind acceptance of widely accepted beliefs isn't always healthy as these beliefs generally tend not to be based on facts. This book gives me The Davinci Code vibes, but it's such a shame it doesn't read quite as easy as that controversial Dan Brown novel. I believe it is a must-read for all churches, to foster a healthy debate on the subject matter.

[Nyambura Githui]

I was raised in the Christian faith. Though I wouldn't believe the findings of this book, am curious to know the author's perspective of things. It really is intriguing.

[Sahansdal]

I was raised in the Christian faith. Though I wouldn't believe the findings of this book, am curious to know the author's perspective of things. It really is intriguing.

Well, I was once a Christian as you are. You can count on this. I am very familiar with most Faith's and how they got that way. I have been doing this a long time. I don't want to see others fooled by a Church deception as I was as a teen. The NT Gospel story is fiction with a purpose: to hide that there was a succession.