What is your opinion on the author using the apocrypha?

Use this forum to discuss the May 2019 Book of the month, "Misreading Judas" by Robert Wahler
Post Reply
Sahansdal
Posts: 398
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Re: What is your opinion on the author using the apocrypha?

Post by Sahansdal » 12 Jun 2019, 17:37

Kyoks wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 02:29
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.
This is the author. I find your comment interesting. Maybe you could elaborate what you mean? There is deep spirituality hidden in the New Testament Gospels. But you have to learn Mysticism first to find it. That is what Sant Mat can do. Sant = Saints, Mat = Teachings. Scienceofthesoul.org is the booksite for Sant Mat writings, many by the mystic Masters themselves, in their own English. So, you can take them at their word! This is exciting news! I looked for years before I found it.

User avatar
VernaVi
Posts: 288
Joined: 30 Sep 2018, 00:36
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 68
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-vernavi.html
Latest Review: The Wild Mountian Thyme by Kathryn Scarborough

Post by VernaVi » 13 Jun 2019, 16:24

Sahansdal wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 17:13
VernaVi wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 16:21
Sahansdal wrote:
03 Jun 2019, 11:08

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 By Historical documents that verify one another with their own proven authenticity.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.

Pristine from the ground? The phrase 'from the ground' does not make anything pristine. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls were verified after having been found. My sources are impeccable. I read many different texts, and I don't care where they were found, the ground, caves, it doesn't matter. In my official Online Book Club Review of Misreading Judas, you can see some of the sources I have listed. Perhaps you will enjoy them: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=106604

Sahansdal
Posts: 398
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal » 13 Jun 2019, 17:44

VernaVi wrote:
13 Jun 2019, 16:24
Sahansdal wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 17:13
VernaVi wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 16:21


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.

Pristine from the ground? The phrase 'from the ground' does not make anything pristine. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls were verified after having been found. My sources are impeccable. I read many different texts, and I don't care where they were found, the ground, caves, it doesn't matter. In my official Online Book Club Review of Misreading Judas, you can see some of the sources I have listed. Perhaps you will enjoy them: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=106604
You are questioning the "veracity" of the Nag Hammadi/Al Minya discoveries? You would be alone in that. All scholars I am aware of say they are genuine.

Sahansdal
Posts: 398
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal » 13 Jun 2019, 17:55

VernaVi wrote:
13 Jun 2019, 16:24
Sahansdal wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 17:13
VernaVi wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 16:21


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.

Pristine from the ground? The phrase 'from the ground' does not make anything pristine. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls were verified after having been found. My sources are impeccable. I read many different texts, and I don't care where they were found, the ground, caves, it doesn't matter. In my official Online Book Club Review of Misreading Judas, you can see some of the sources I have listed. Perhaps you will enjoy them: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=106604
What "proof" do you have that Jesus lived? He is not recorded in any historical account anywhere, reliably, including Josephus, where the two mentions are obviously Christian interpolations. Is there someone who witnessed Jesus rising from the tomb? Not even the disciples. Any witnesses to miracles? You need to read Richard Pervo's The Mystery of Acts to see the source of many of Lukes' fables. Dr. Richard Carrier, Dr. Robert Price, and Dr. Robert Eisenman will also debunk the idea that the New Testament is a record of history.

I don't base my contention on theology. I learned textual analysis from Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Eisenman. Comparing the Apocalypses of James and Peter to the canonical "Betrayal of Christ" shows that the gnostics were the original story. Maybe you recall some of the argument from reading the book. You say you read it. I don't accuse Jesus of corrupting the Word. The Word is ethereal and cannot be corrupted. The Bible is not the Word of God. The Holy Spirit is. I accuse the Gospel authors of corrupting mystic teaching! There are many characters in the New Testament who cover James. Jesus and Judas are just two of them. Jesus is invention. In my view, his character is a composite of John the B and James. Their life parallels are uncanny.

Who is it I insult? I wrote it for Christians like you. I don't even 'insult' the scholars, really, since I applaud April DeConick when she deserves it, which isn't very often.

Dr. Eisenman wrote that James is the source of the virgin birth. He also ties 'Stephen' to James, yet another covering character in the Gospel story. The whole reason for the Gospel story is to hide James, nothing else. It is disinformation.

Kyoks
Posts: 132
Joined: 18 Jan 2019, 06:48
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 53
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-kyoks.html
Latest Review: The Lost Identity Casualties by Kim Ekemar

Post by Kyoks » 14 Jun 2019, 01:04

VernaVi wrote:
13 Jun 2019, 16:24
Sahansdal wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 17:13
VernaVi wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 16:21


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.

Pristine from the ground? The phrase 'from the ground' does not make anything pristine. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls were verified after having been found. My sources are impeccable. I read many different texts, and I don't care where they were found, the ground, caves, it doesn't matter. In my official Online Book Club Review of Misreading Judas, you can see some of the sources I have listed. Perhaps you will enjoy them: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=106604
Thank you and looking forward to reading more from the website you listed.

User avatar
Helen_Combe
Posts: 2467
Joined: 18 Feb 2018, 12:17
2018 Reading Goal: 50
2018 Reading Goal Completion: 150
2017 Reading Goal: 0
Favorite Book: The Martian
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 186
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-helen-combe.html
Latest Review: I'm Swimming in the Toilet... PLEASE DON'T FLUSH! by Len Foley
Reading Device: B00M4L4MFC

Post by Helen_Combe » 14 Jun 2019, 13:46

I’ve always found the apocryphal books particularly interesting as they seem to contain rather interesting stories edited out of the canon. Like Adam’s first wife being created his equal. I like the apocrypha.
A thesaurus is necessary, essential, indispensable, vital, crucial and fundamental.

Sahansdal
Posts: 398
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal » 14 Jun 2019, 21:07

Tiffanyli wrote:
15 May 2019, 14:36
I do think that he relies too specifically on that gospel. I didn't have a problem with the use of that specific apocrypha, but I feel like his argument would have definitely been stronger if he was able to find evidence or examples to back up his argument from other sources. Since it's hard to say whether or not the information is false, he should not have ignored the bible altogher, only focusing on the "Gospel of Judas".
I did. I used Maharaj Charan Singh, the Apocryphon of John, the Apocalypses of James and Peter, and Swami Ji, for a few examples. Didn't you read it? It surely doesn't sound like it. I constantly referred to the Bible Gospels.

User avatar
N_R
Posts: 391
Joined: 19 Sep 2017, 01:32
2019 Reading Goal: 15
2019 Reading Goal Completion: 13
2018 Reading Goal: 30
2018 Reading Goal Completion: 83
2017 Reading Goal: 25
2017 Reading Goal Completion: 8
Favorite Author: James Mace
Currently Reading: Happy Healing
Bookshelf Size: 182
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-n-r.html
Latest Review: The Embalmer by Vincent Zandri
fav_author_id: 21042

Post by N_R » 15 Jun 2019, 19:59

I think that sometimes it is good to have content which makes us think and encourages us to question why there are certain books left out of The Bible. There are many stories which were left out and there could have been many reasons for this ranging from it not supporting the agent of the state and the goal of Christianity at the time.

User avatar
Sekhmet September
Posts: 31
Joined: 08 Mar 2019, 14:41
2019 Reading Goal: 6
2019 Reading Goal Completion: 366
Favorite Author: Tanith Lee
Currently Reading: Stranded In The Wild
Bookshelf Size: 67
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-sekhmet-september.html
Latest Review: Heartaches 2 by H.M. Irwing
fav_author_id: 10199

Post by Sekhmet September » 17 Jun 2019, 10:28

On one hand, the biblical canon was decided by emperor Constantine. Albeit he was a human who can err, there was much that went into putting the bible together in terms of scrutiny and accuracy.

That being said, it is important to keep in mind that history is written by the dominant faction, and the Christian bible is unfortunately no exception. The Apocryphal texts should be scrutinized with some background information. Some books were fiction created by early Christians to demonstrate their beliefs, not to be taken as fact but to elaborate morals and philosophy. Some books were omitted intentionally because they just didn't fit with the current dogma.

I believe it is important to be open minded regarding these issues and certainly learn whatever we can from the Apocrypha. Misreading Judas is no exception, and I would certainly love to read it to evaluate its content for myself.
Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.
Hebrews 11 1 NIV

Sahansdal
Posts: 398
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal » 17 Jun 2019, 20:28

Sekhmet September wrote:
17 Jun 2019, 10:28
On one hand, the biblical canon was decided by emperor Constantine. Albeit he was a human who can err, there was much that went into putting the bible together in terms of scrutiny and accuracy.

That being said, it is important to keep in mind that history is written by the dominant faction, and the Christian bible is unfortunately no exception. The Apocryphal texts should be scrutinized with some background information. Some books were fiction created by early Christians to demonstrate their beliefs, not to be taken as fact but to elaborate morals and philosophy. Some books were omitted intentionally because they just didn't fit with the current dogma.

I believe it is important to be open minded regarding these issues and certainly learn whatever we can from the Apocrypha. Misreading Judas is no exception, and I would certainly love to read it to evaluate its content for myself.
Please do, and get back to me with your observations. Constantine didn't really decide the canon. That would be Irenaeus and Athanasius, especially his Easter letter of 367. Constantine, as Emperor, was the power behind the canonization. He was not the brains.

Acwoolet
Posts: 509
Joined: 07 May 2014, 21:57
Favorite Author: Karen Kingsbury
Favorite Book: Gone With the Wind
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 59
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-acwoolet.html
Latest Review: Camouflage by Ivy Keating and Scott Spotson
fav_author_id: 6216

Post by Acwoolet » 23 Jun 2019, 15:44

I think that it’s very interesting that the author chose to study the Gospel of Judas. I think if anything it’s interesting to study it in a historical aspect even if not in a Biblical aspect. It’s something to look into further for sure.

Sahansdal
Posts: 398
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal » 23 Jun 2019, 17:16

Acwoolet wrote:
23 Jun 2019, 15:44
I think that it’s very interesting that the author chose to study the Gospel of Judas. I think if anything it’s interesting to study it in a historical aspect even if not in a Biblical aspect. It’s something to look into further for sure.
Does that mean you'll read it? And review it?

Sahansdal
Posts: 398
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal » 23 Jun 2019, 18:20

Kyoks wrote:
14 Jun 2019, 01:04
VernaVi wrote:
13 Jun 2019, 16:24
Sahansdal wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 17:13

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.

Pristine from the ground? The phrase 'from the ground' does not make anything pristine. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls were verified after having been found. My sources are impeccable. I read many different texts, and I don't care where they were found, the ground, caves, it doesn't matter. In my official Online Book Club Review of Misreading Judas, you can see some of the sources I have listed. Perhaps you will enjoy them: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=106604
Thank you and looking forward to reading more from the website you listed.
This answer was originally removed by moderators. I did get a little, shall I say, enthusiastic in composing it, so I rewrote it. I hope this more cordial reply makes the grade. I thought it important to address some points in Verna's review of my book:

But you still don't substantiate your criticism with solid example, Verna. That is all I was asking. Now I will address your comments one by one. You say this: Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler seeks to replace Jesus with Judas, the betrayer of Christ. No, I don't. Jesus does cover Judas in a few instances, but the point of the book is that JAMES is replaced by Judas, not that Jesus is -- and inverted into an evil traitor, in place of the Master who he, in fact, was. That's an astonishing thing to say, and you never mentioned it. It is the entire premise and purpose of the book! Did you miss it? How could you say you read it and didn't discover that? If James was the Master, and I think I show that he clearly was in Gnostic reckoning, and also filled every role played by Judas in the canon, then who was Jesus? I thought there could only be one Master/savior. It wasn't I who first pointed out that Judas was James in Acts 1. That was Dr. Robert Eisenman. You should read his books. He alone demolishes Christianity as an authority on anything with his excellent research on Paul as "The Spouter of Lying" in the Habbakuk Pesher and other Dead Sea Scrolls. He knows how to do real comparative analysis of these ancient sources. Nobody else comes close. He is a true genius. I know him personally. He taught me how to do this.

Verna, you say my book is "frantically paced," when what I was doing was keeping it short for the benefit of my readers. This is my second book. I give much important background in the first volume. This book is specifically about misreading Judas. That's why it is called Misreading JUDAS, not misreading the Bible, or the New Testament, or the Gospels. I conclude ("inconclusively") by calling the New Testament a cover up, which it surely is. I proved it. It was so successful that modern day scholars, with all their many tools at their disposal, can't see that Judas is the sacrifice in the Gospel of Judas.

Next, you say, Instead of just comparing religions in this book he rejects all religion except for gnostic mysticism. No,I don't. I say mysticism is the basis for all true religion -- as it is. Except, that is, for New Testament Christianity, which is not a true religion. If nothing else, Ecc. 1:9 and Hosea 6:6 say so. There can be nothing "new," and certainly not salvation through human sacrifice.

Then, He is accusing Jesus of corruption and of corrupting the word of God. Where do I say that? I say the writers of the Gospels do! Jesus is invention. I think I make that crystal clear. Where do I engage in "name calling of the prophets," as you say I do in your Amazon review?

Next, you conflate how I portray James and Jesus. They are not both trying to be Judas. Both Jesus and Judas, are, at times, COVERS for James. Judas always is. The author is trying (and succeeding) in writing James OUT of the New Testament. Dr. Eisenman makes this m.o. very clear in all his books.

Next, It also claims that James was the source of the concept of the virgin birth. I'm sure I must have said that this is a determination made by Dr. Eisenman. It is so. If I didn't, please tell me. He should get the credit.

Paul, he says, is a maverick gnostic and a murdering liar to the end and that there will be no further progress in biblical studies without this view.
This is also Eisenman. Christians must read him.

There is a passage where the author declares that the Red Sea crossing (story of Moses) was symbolic only, but that fact is that it was scientifically proven, and the Pharaoh of Egypt’s golden chariot wheels are documented and lying on the bottom of the floor of the Red Sea today. This is just not true. There may have been some pieces of wheels found, but they certainly were not the Pharaoh's! You are reading from your apologetics! They're misleading you.

Then, The fact that it doesn’t recognize established scientific proofs cost this book a star in the rating. This is unfair. What scientific fact am I ignoring? The wheels you mention on the sea bottom are not from any Pharoaoh's golden chariot.

Next, There is a reason that Gnostic writings have long been problematic and rejected by biblical scholars over time. While the Bible has been proven, many gnostic writings have not. That is special pleading. What do you mean? That they are rejected for the canon? The canon was picked by Athanasius. Scholars are in no position to pick. We are doing research here, not a poll. That only the Bible is "proven" is purely Christian fantasy.

It is an area of literary works that have not always been proven out by either history or science. The gnostic codices are genuine. They are carbon-dated to the time they are said to be from. I show that they are historically the very source of the canon. Sorry you missed that.

It is in every reader’s interest to err on the side of caution when entering into a work that suggests or recommends a complete rewrite of the Bible and or other established belief systems without historical or scientific proofs within that same work which legitimize its message. I certainly did not do a "complete rewrite of the Bible." I did a literary comparison.

You: I understand that it can be nerve-wracking for someone to speak up about new ideas to the world, I also have to remember that new ideas should include the weight of proofs behind them or they will invariably fail. Faith without works is nothing but works without proofs are even worse. Proof (especially in the field of religion) comprises findings both physical and scientific which give evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that prove the concept, idea, or theory which is being introduced.
What 'physical' or 'scientific' proof is it you desire in my quest to show the literary sources of the Bible? I use mystical teachings to explain how the physical evidence of literary parallels prove that the Gnostics wrote an original mastership succession narrative that was copied and inverted by Christian authors of the Bible.
And that, my friend, is important.

User avatar
Mouricia25
Posts: 376
Joined: 01 Jan 2018, 15:49
2019 Reading Goal: 12
2019 Reading Goal Completion: 108
2018 Reading Goal: 12
2018 Reading Goal Completion: 216
Currently Reading: Covet (Fallen Angels Series #1)
Bookshelf Size: 68
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-mouricia25.html
Latest Review: Forged Through Glory by DeZré Storm
Reading Device: B01N3UC27N

Post by Mouricia25 » 25 Jun 2019, 01:18

Churches often times tend to do away with things that do not fit their agenda. That could be the case why this book isn't in the bible as we know it. So I don't mind him using stuff to boost his points. That's not to say I agree with him however.

Sahansdal
Posts: 398
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal » 26 Jun 2019, 11:24

Mouricia25 wrote:
25 Jun 2019, 01:18
Churches often times tend to do away with things that do not fit their agenda. That could be the case why this book isn't in the bible as we know it. So I don't mind him using stuff to boost his points. That's not to say I agree with him however.
Mouricia25,
I would love to hear your comments on the book. Did I provide enough of a case?

Post Reply

Return to “Discuss "Misreading Judas" by Robert Wahler”