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

Amina Yusuf · Post by **Amina Yusuf** » 23 Jul 2019, 12:35

I haven't yet read the book. However, I believe there are questions that may challenge our perspective on the Gospel of Judas and profound lessons to learn from the points raised by the author in his book.

Sahansdal · Post by **Sahansdal** » 23 Jul 2019, 17:14

Amina Yusuf wrote: ↑23 Jul 2019, 12:35 I haven't yet read the book. However, I believe there are questions that may challenge our perspective on the Gospel of Judas and profound lessons to learn from the points raised by the author in his book.

When and if you do, please review on Amazon? https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15246 ... 5K32J6D6Y1

Czolly23 · Post by **Czolly23** » 27 Jul 2019, 07:27

I have not read this book, and it does not seem like a book for me. I typically like reading books with different views than my own, but this doesn’t seem like a book that is deemed for someone who considers themselves religious. I will day that it sounds like an exquisitely well written novel.

shravsi · Post by **shravsi** » 27 Jul 2019, 10:56

Though this book genre is not for me it seems like a well put together book. It makes us question the things which we always believed in like judas case.

Sahansdal · Post by **Sahansdal** » 27 Jul 2019, 11:29

shravsi wrote: ↑27 Jul 2019, 10:56 Though this book genre is not for me it seems like a well put together book. It makes us question the things which we always believed in like Judas case.

Thanks for your comment. I hope some of you will review on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15246 ... 5K32J6D6Y1

Alison Alissa · Post by **Alison Alissa** » 28 Jul 2019, 07:32

Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler is drawing boundaries between what I thought was wholly true and what has recently been uncovered gives good placing to the book in the non-fiction series hence capturing the attention of Christians.

Gathoni1991 · Post by **Gathoni1991** » 28 Jul 2019, 12:31

srividyag1 wrote: ↑01 May 2019, 21:14 I was born into a religion with a multitude of gods. I’ve always been curious about Christianity and its history; the role it played in shaping the world’s history. I gather that what the author deals with in this book is a very controversial topic. When I read the sample, it consisted of mostly reviews from other publications. Yet, the introduction itself reads like a research paper. I am curious about how mysticism and Christian beliefs are linked. I am interested in reading this book because I like having a healthy debate about many deep-rooted systems. I believe that any new knowledge that comes to light should be treated with the dispassionate eye of science and research and used for the betterment of humanity.

I think it doesn't matter the religion, but the most important thing is to believe in a supreme being (s), and the balance of nature. For any action there is a reward.

Gathoni1991 · Post by **Gathoni1991** » 28 Jul 2019, 12:35

Alison Alissa wrote: ↑28 Jul 2019, 07:32 Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler is drawing boundaries between what I thought was wholly true and what has recently been uncovered gives good placing to the book in the non-fiction series hence capturing the attention of Christians.

Religion is always a sensitive topic. Especially to Christians. Do you think he could have stirred up a hornet's nest with this book?

N_R · Post by **N_R** » 28 Jul 2019, 17:33

Its always an interesting question and people have talked about Judas for centuries. Was he a hero and sacrificed himself? I think that it is possible that Jesus knew as he knew that one of them would betray him.

THarveyReadALot · Post by **THarveyReadALot** » 28 Jul 2019, 22:18

I would like to reply to:
Post by Jbcitygirl » 01 May 2019, 23:54

'I would recommend this book to be viewed by all churches for their interpretation on the subject matter. What if this elaborate cover of up changes history as we know it. If it was a matter of misinterpretation; this opens up a can of worms, because who’s to say there isn’t more of the Bible that has been misinterpreted? One could argue that everything written was guided by the hand of God, but man is sinful and not without fault. This book could lead to hours of debate!'

Well, I don't totally agree that the book should be reviewed by all churches. I'm not sure that every church is doctrinally sound, that is, believing in the truth and inerrancy of Scripture. Speaking of that, God is perfectly capable of making sure the Scriptures were not tainted by human writers. After all, they were all imperfect. So God has no 'choice' but to use human writers to communicate His perfect message. And since the Scriptures are 100% reliable, we can trust what it says about Judas. We can't trust the Gnostic Gospels. They weren't inspired. I've already mentioned that in another comment I wrote, but I don't remember who I was replying to.

Proofreading correction (because Grammarly told me there's something wrong with the word "written" being by itself.)
The sentence above should read, '...One could argue that everything 'that was written' was guided by the hand of God,
... (apostrophes around 'written' not needed in your own writing) This correction is getting complicated.

Sahansdal · Post by **Sahansdal** » 29 Jul 2019, 10:00

THarveyReadALot wrote: ↑28 Jul 2019, 22:18 I would like to reply to:
Post by Jbcitygirl » 01 May 2019, 23:54

'I would recommend this book to be viewed by all churches for their interpretation on the subject matter. What if this elaborate cover of up changes history as we know it. If it was a matter of misinterpretation; this opens up a can of worms, because who’s to say there isn’t more of the Bible that has been misinterpreted? One could argue that everything written was guided by the hand of God, but man is sinful and not without fault. This book could lead to hours of debate!'

Well, I don't totally agree that the book should be reviewed by all churches. I'm not sure that every church is doctrinally sound, that is, believing in the truth and inerrancy of Scripture. Speaking of that, God is perfectly capable of making sure the Scriptures were not tainted by human writers. After all, they were all imperfect. So God has no 'choice' but to use human writers to communicate His perfect message. And since the Scriptures are 100% reliable, we can trust what it says about Judas. We can't trust the Gnostic Gospels. They weren't inspired. I've already mentioned that in another comment I wrote, but I don't remember who I was replying to.

Proofreading correction (because Grammarly told me there's something wrong with the word "written" being by itself.)
The sentence above should read, '...One could argue that everything 'that was written' was guided by the hand of God,
... (apostrophes around 'written' not needed in your own writing) This correction is getting complicated.

I would really like to know why believers say the Bible is divinely inspired, as if they personally knew who wrote it. What proof do you have that the Bible, just because someone put "Holy Biblie" on the cover has to be holy? What makes it any more authentic than the gnostic texts?

Brentwadehopkins · Post by **Brentwadehopkins** » 29 Jul 2019, 10:16

Having read the book, I do think the author is over-reaching in his interpretations. Remember that this particular gospel seems to have been written in the 2nd century AD, and this seems to be true for much of the extant Gnostic writings. While I agree with the concept of "Pauline propaganda", we must remember that Paul's writings are the earliest extant concerning Christianity, and even the Gospel of Mark was written a decade or so after. Also remember that half the Pauline letters were written later by someone else, and you see the quandary we are in when discussing the truth of Christianity.

Sahansdal · Post by **Sahansdal** » 29 Jul 2019, 14:11

Brentwadehopkins wrote: ↑29 Jul 2019, 10:16 Having read the book, I do think the author is over-reaching in his interpretations. Remember that this particular gospel seems to have been written in the 2nd century AD, and this seems to be true for much of the extant Gnostic writings. While I agree with the concept of "Pauline propaganda", we must remember that Paul's writings are the earliest extant concerning Christianity, and even the Gospel of Mark was written a decade or so after. Also remember that half the Pauline letters were written later by someone else, and you see the quandary we are in when discussing the truth of Christianity.

Everything you say is true except for the dating of Gospel of Judas. NO ONE KNOWS. It was originally composed in Greek. Anyone saying they know is over-reaching. I say it is just as early since Matthias is not mentioned where one would expect if the canon came first. At least that part (page 36).

supernatural143 · Post by **supernatural143** » 29 Jul 2019, 22:34

The title "Misreading Judas" is thought-provoking. If not for Judas' betrayal, how would have Jesus saved mankind? Can't Judas do good deeds that could help mankind aside from betraying Jesus? In this book, I wonder how the author present the pros and cons about Judas.

I will come back to post my final rating for this book after reading its entire contents.

THarveyReadALot · Post by **THarveyReadALot** » 29 Jul 2019, 22:48

Sahansdal wrote: ↑29 Jul 2019, 10:00
THarveyReadALot wrote: ↑28 Jul 2019, 22:18 I would like to reply to:
Post by Jbcitygirl » 01 May 2019, 23:54

'I would recommend this book to be viewed by all churches for their interpretation on the subject matter. What if this elaborate cover of up changes history as we know it. If it was a matter of misinterpretation; this opens up a can of worms, because who’s to say there isn’t more of the Bible that has been misinterpreted? One could argue that everything written was guided by the hand of God, but man is sinful and not without fault. This book could lead to hours of debate!'

Well, I don't totally agree that the book should be reviewed by all churches. I'm not sure that every church is doctrinally sound, that is, believing in the truth and inerrancy of Scripture. Speaking of that, God is perfectly capable of making sure the Scriptures were not tainted by human writers. After all, they were all imperfect. So God has no 'choice' but to use human writers to communicate His perfect message. And since the Scriptures are 100% reliable, we can trust what it says about Judas. We can't trust the Gnostic Gospels. They weren't inspired. I've already mentioned that in another comment I wrote, but I don't remember who I was replying to.

Proofreading correction (because Grammarly told me there's something wrong with the word "written" being by itself.)
The sentence above should read, '...One could argue that everything 'that was written' was guided by the hand of God,
... (apostrophes around 'written' not needed in your own writing) This correction is getting complicated.
I would really like to know why believers say the Bible is divinely inspired as if they personally knew who wrote it. What proof do you have that the Bible, just because someone put "Holy Bible" on the cover has to be holy? What makes it any more authentic than the gnostic texts?

Sahansdal,
Brief answer now: The Bible has a central theme. Only God could have orchestrated that over the hundreds of years that the books of the Bible were penned by human authors. God is perfect, and being omnipresent and omniscient, and all-powerful, He can superintend over the writing of all the Bible's different books. The Bible is Holy because God is Holy.