Truth or Fable?

Use this forum to discuss the May 2019 Book of the month, "Misreading Judas" by Robert Wahler
Forum rules
NOTICE: The author of this book was invited to participate in the discussion in this forum about his book. You should expect that the author is reading and may reply to posts made in this forum.

While the forums typically have a rule against authors/publishers talking about their own book on the forums at all as a way to prevent spam, an author discussing their own book in the dedicated discussion forum about that book is an exception and is allowed, including posting would-be self-promotional links to his book or related material insofar as is relevant to the discussion.

However, other forum rules and standards, such as those requiring upmost civility and politeness, are of course still in effect.
Don Pwai
Posts: 93
Joined: 22 Aug 2018, 21:48
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 48
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-don-pwai.html
Latest Review: The Orb by Tara Basi

Re: Truth or Fable?

Post by Don Pwai »

The answer to this question depends on a persons stance in life. For instance, Christians believe in the truthfulness of the bible and it would be a difficult task convincing them to change their view of certain persons or provisions of the bible.
Latest Review: The Orb by Tara Basi
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal »

Don Pwai wrote: 17 Jul 2019, 12:18 The answer to this question depends on a persons stance in life. For instance, Christians believe in the truthfulness of the bible and it would be a difficult task convincing them to change their view of certain persons or provisions of the bible.
I changed mine! Just be a little open-minded. - the Author
User avatar
Lisa A Rayburn
Previous Member of the Month
Posts: 2977
Joined: 09 May 2018, 07:34
Currently Reading: Fluff Dragon
Bookshelf Size: 267
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-lisa-a-rayburn.html
Latest Review: Nightlord: Sunset by Garon Whited
Reading Device: B018QAYM7C

Post by Lisa A Rayburn »

Don Pwai wrote: 17 Jul 2019, 12:18 The answer to this question depends on a persons stance in life. For instance, Christians believe in the truthfulness of the bible and it would be a difficult task convincing them to change their view of certain persons or provisions of the bible.
Great point! And this stands true of those from other religions as well. It would be difficult to sway them from their beliefs/holy books as well. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts with us!
Books are my self-medication. 8)
User avatar
fmd1821
Posts: 120
Joined: 25 Mar 2019, 09:18
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 137
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-fmd1821.html
Latest Review: Mastering Real Estate with Private Money by Tom Braegelmann

Post by fmd1821 »

Even though I have read many parts of the book many times, I am still not completely sure about what the truth is. I like the explanations the author gives, but at times I find it difficult to believe everything he has written.
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal »

fmd1821 wrote: 19 Jul 2019, 02:40 Even though I have read many parts of the book many times, I am still not completely sure about what the truth is. I like the explanations the author gives, but at times I find it difficult to believe everything he has written.
What part don't you believe? I learned what I know from a Master.
User avatar
Lisa A Rayburn
Previous Member of the Month
Posts: 2977
Joined: 09 May 2018, 07:34
Currently Reading: Fluff Dragon
Bookshelf Size: 267
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-lisa-a-rayburn.html
Latest Review: Nightlord: Sunset by Garon Whited
Reading Device: B018QAYM7C

Post by Lisa A Rayburn »

fmd1821 wrote: 19 Jul 2019, 02:40 Even though I have read many parts of the book many times, I am still not completely sure about what the truth is. I like the explanations the author gives, but at times I find it difficult to believe everything he has written.
I find much of what he has written interesting as well, even if only on a philosophical level. As has been said many times so far in this forum, swaying anyone from their own truth, whatever that may be, is exceptionally difficult. I would wager that the same stands for you and me.
Books are my self-medication. 8)
Amina Yusuf
Posts: 559
Joined: 03 Apr 2018, 08:13
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 89
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-amina-yusuf.html
Latest Review: Can I Be Frank? by Rob Wyatt
Reading Device: B07PQLY49F

Post by Amina Yusuf »

Fable. I don't believe a word of it. I think I will stick to the original historical facts.
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal »

Amina Yusuf wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 09:44 Fable. I don't believe a word of it. I think I will stick to the original historical facts.
Which 'facts' could you possibly mean? The New Testament is literature, not history.
User avatar
Lisa A Rayburn
Previous Member of the Month
Posts: 2977
Joined: 09 May 2018, 07:34
Currently Reading: Fluff Dragon
Bookshelf Size: 267
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-lisa-a-rayburn.html
Latest Review: Nightlord: Sunset by Garon Whited
Reading Device: B018QAYM7C

Post by Lisa A Rayburn »

Sahansdal wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 09:58
Amina Yusuf wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 09:44 Fable. I don't believe a word of it. I think I will stick to the original historical facts.
Which 'facts' could you possibly mean? The New Testament is literature, not history.
Playing devil's advocate again. Whether the New Testament is literature or history is a matter of opinion, to which everyone is entitled. I still stand by my former statement(s). Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Thank you both for your comments!
jlrinc
Posts: 52
Joined: 08 Apr 2019, 03:50
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 11
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-jlrinc.html
Latest Review: Burn Zones by Jorge P. Newbery
Reading Device: 1400697484

Post by jlrinc »

Sahansdal wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 09:58
Amina Yusuf wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 09:44 Fable. I don't believe a word of it. I think I will stick to the original historical facts.
Which 'facts' could you possibly mean? The New Testament is literature, not history.
Here is an interesting fact. The word for bears me in the phrase you will sacrifice the one who bears me is the same word used in homer for the horses who bear Achilles, This word has also been translated as the one who clothes me.. What all this means is is that Jesus says that Judas will offer for sacrifice the human body that bears the christ. This is gnostic idea about Christ it occurs over and over again in the nag hammadi texts. The early church fathers condemn it as heresy time and again in their heresologies. The epistle of john even says that those who believe it are antichrists. Any cursory study of gnosticism will show this. This is the only interpretation that anyone who has an expertise in gnosticism believes. This is how it has been translated by every expert in coptic who has translated it. How does Judas Bear Jesus in the dialogue? Why doesnt Jesus just say you will sacrifice yourself? Can the author point to a single other gnostic text where the word bear is used in this way,Can the author point to a single time when the word bear is used this way in english, in greek the word means carry in english it means carry , in what sense does judas carry Jesus? If Judas was James why are the two together in the gospel of John? Why is James not disguised as Judas in any other gnostic book? In the phrase the unspoken word the author says it can only be undertsood as mysticism. Does he know that the phrase originates with Plotinus a philosopher in middle platonism, the very foundation fo western rationalism? Does the author know that Eisenmann doesnt quote a single modern scholar in the entire 1000+ pages of his book on James? Why does the author of this book ignore the scholarship of every prominent scholar who has looked at the text and yet the author reads neither coptic or greek himself? I actually applaud your scepticism and your independent inquiry but you have to be much more careful in building your arguments. You have hunch that something isnt right in the orthodox teachings of Christianity and you are doubtless correct but you need to start from the ground and go up. When you write you need to prove yourself wrong , this means examining the work of scholars who know more than you and test your ideas against theirs. You need to be ruthless against your own intuitions. In your book you dismiss every expert in the field. If you find 3 scholars who disagree with your interpretation you need to find three others who support it. You need to challenge your own ideas with that kind of ferocity and if you do this honestly and with integrity what is still standing will stand for a very long time. Another good option for you (and I think you have a lot of potential to be a really good writer) is to write about what your really trying to say. I think you are using Judas as a proxy to for your own ideas, forget Judas forget James just tell us your ideas. I bet you have a lot to say about spirituality that nobody can refute. That would be an awesome book. gnosticism is an incredibly complex set of ideas, is the Gospel of Judas influenced by the ideas of the Carpocrations, Velencius, Marcion? How does Barbelos, the demiurge, the autogenes differ in Judas than in other works? Does it reflect earlier gnostic ideas or are they more fully evolved? These are questions any author on G. Judas should be able to answer. Those are a lot of work to find out. If you want to be an expert then it requires a lot of work. But you have expertise in anthoer field that you are not utilising, work that you have put into study with your teacher and that you probably are a real expert in. If gnosticism is what you want to work in you ahve to get caught up and I have no doubt you can but it will be very very hard. You are probably right now an expert in the field that you have studied write that book! I have no doubt that book will be a classic! Best wishes sincerely
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal »

jlrinc wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 23:43
Sahansdal wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 09:58
Amina Yusuf wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 09:44 Fable. I don't believe a word of it. I think I will stick to the original historical facts.
Which 'facts' could you possibly mean? The New Testament is literature, not history.
Here is an interesting fact. The word for bears me in the phrase you will sacrifice the one who bears me is the same word used in homer for the horses who bear Achilles, This word has also been translated as the one who clothes me.. What all this means is is that Jesus says that Judas will offer for sacrifice the human body that bears the christ. This is gnostic idea about Christ it occurs over and over again in the nag hammadi texts. The early church fathers condemn it as heresy time and again in their heresologies. The epistle of john even says that those who believe it are antichrists. Any cursory study of gnosticism will show this. This is the only interpretation that anyone who has an expertise in gnosticism believes. This is how it has been translated by every expert in coptic who has translated it. How does Judas Bear Jesus in the dialogue? Why doesnt Jesus just say you will sacrifice yourself? Can the author point to a single other gnostic text where the word bear is used in this way,Can the author point to a single time when the word bear is used this way in english, in greek the word means carry in english it means carry , in what sense does judas carry Jesus? If Judas was James why are the two together in the gospel of John? Why is James not disguised as Judas in any other gnostic book? In the phrase the unspoken word the author says it can only be undertsood as mysticism. Does he know that the phrase originates with Plotinus a philosopher in middle platonism, the very foundation fo western rationalism? Does the author know that Eisenmann doesnt quote a single modern scholar in the entire 1000+ pages of his book on James? Why does the author of this book ignore the scholarship of every prominent scholar who has looked at the text and yet the author reads neither coptic or greek himself? I actually applaud your scepticism and your independent inquiry but you have to be much more careful in building your arguments. You have hunch that something isnt right in the orthodox teachings of Christianity and you are doubtless correct but you need to start from the ground and go up. When you write you need to prove yourself wrong , this means examining the work of scholars who know more than you and test your ideas against theirs. You need to be ruthless against your own intuitions. In your book you dismiss every expert in the field. If you find 3 scholars who disagree with your interpretation you need to find three others who support it. You need to challenge your own ideas with that kind of ferocity and if you do this honestly and with integrity what is still standing will stand for a very long time. Another good option for you (and I think you have a lot of potential to be a really good writer) is to write about what your really trying to say. I think you are using Judas as a proxy to for your own ideas, forget Judas forget James just tell us your ideas. I bet you have a lot to say about spirituality that nobody can refute. That would be an awesome book. gnosticism is an incredibly complex set of ideas, is the Gospel of Judas influenced by the ideas of the Carpocrations, Velencius, Marcion? How does Barbelos, the demiurge, the autogenes differ in Judas than in other works? Does it reflect earlier gnostic ideas or are they more fully evolved? These are questions any author on G. Judas should be able to answer. Those are a lot of work to find out. If you want to be an expert then it requires a lot of work. But you have expertise in anthoer field that you are not utilising, work that you have put into study with your teacher and that you probably are a real expert in. If gnosticism is what you want to work in you ahve to get caught up and I have no doubt you can but it will be very very hard. You are probably right now an expert in the field that you have studied write that book! I have no doubt that book will be a classic! Best wishes sincerely
jrinc,
Wow. At last somebody is really offering something to move the discussion. It surely moved me! I'll get back on this after I get up. I'm still in meditation mode this morning. Thank you. This will require lots of thought. I believe I have the answers for you.
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal »

jlrinc wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 23:43
Sahansdal wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 09:58
Amina Yusuf wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 09:44 Fable. I don't believe a word of it. I think I will stick to the original historical facts.
Which 'facts' could you possibly mean? The New Testament is literature, not history.
Here is an interesting fact. The word for bears me in the phrase you will sacrifice the one who bears me is the same word used in homer for the horses who bear Achilles, This word has also been translated as the one who clothes me.. What all this means is is that Jesus says that Judas will offer for sacrifice the human body that bears the christ. This is gnostic idea about Christ it occurs over and over again in the nag hammadi texts. The early church fathers condemn it as heresy time and again in their heresologies. The epistle of john even says that those who believe it are antichrists. Any cursory study of gnosticism will show this. This is the only interpretation that anyone who has an expertise in gnosticism believes. This is how it has been translated by every expert in coptic who has translated it. How does Judas Bear Jesus in the dialogue? Why doesnt Jesus just say you will sacrifice yourself? Can the author point to a single other gnostic text where the word bear is used in this way,Can the author point to a single time when the word bear is used this way in english, in greek the word means carry in english it means carry , in what sense does judas carry Jesus? If Judas was James why are the two together in the gospel of John? Why is James not disguised as Judas in any other gnostic book? In the phrase the unspoken word the author says it can only be undertsood as mysticism. Does he know that the phrase originates with Plotinus a philosopher in middle platonism, the very foundation fo western rationalism? Does the author know that Eisenmann doesnt quote a single modern scholar in the entire 1000+ pages of his book on James? Why does the author of this book ignore the scholarship of every prominent scholar who has looked at the text and yet the author reads neither coptic or greek himself? I actually applaud your scepticism and your independent inquiry but you have to be much more careful in building your arguments. You have hunch that something isnt right in the orthodox teachings of Christianity and you are doubtless correct but you need to start from the ground and go up. When you write you need to prove yourself wrong , this means examining the work of scholars who know more than you and test your ideas against theirs. You need to be ruthless against your own intuitions. In your book you dismiss every expert in the field. If you find 3 scholars who disagree with your interpretation you need to find three others who support it. You need to challenge your own ideas with that kind of ferocity and if you do this honestly and with integrity what is still standing will stand for a very long time. Another good option for you (and I think you have a lot of potential to be a really good writer) is to write about what your really trying to say. I think you are using Judas as a proxy to for your own ideas, forget Judas forget James just tell us your ideas. I bet you have a lot to say about spirituality that nobody can refute. That would be an awesome book. gnosticism is an incredibly complex set of ideas, is the Gospel of Judas influenced by the ideas of the Carpocrations, Velencius, Marcion? How does Barbelos, the demiurge, the autogenes differ in Judas than in other works? Does it reflect earlier gnostic ideas or are they more fully evolved? These are questions any author on G. Judas should be able to answer. Those are a lot of work to find out. If you want to be an expert then it requires a lot of work. But you have expertise in anthoer field that you are not utilising, work that you have put into study with your teacher and that you probably are a real expert in. If gnosticism is what you want to work in you ahve to get caught up and I have no doubt you can but it will be very very hard. You are probably right now an expert in the field that you have studied write that book! I have no doubt that book will be a classic! Best wishes sincerely
It's Coptic for whatever the Greek original word was, and it doesn't refer to Christ. Read the NHC Apocalypse of Peter for example, section about Paul, the anti-nomian worker of death. "Carry" is a good translation. 'Judas' carries or contains the inner Man, Jesus. Gnostics hated sacrifice of others. 'Man' refers to the gnostic lower self, the "twelve elements" of Judas in gJudas 36.1-3 which are replaced by "someone else" -- the Master, Christ. Judas asked the question, "What will those baptized IN YOUR NAME do?" The Name is Nam or Shabd of the Sikhs, and mystic Satsangis like me. 'Name' of the Lord is Word, the Apophasis Logos. 'Name' isn't 'Jesus.' It has been incarnating since at least Seth (Genesis 4:26). The Master initiates and he waits for the disciple to progress to the point where he "sacrifices the man [the disciple's self] who bears me [the Master]." This is the answer from Jesus. There is no answer to the question of Judas at the end of page 55 until page 56 and this line spoken by Jesus. Judas will exceed the others and become one with the Master. The ode to the conqueror immediately follows, "Your horn has been raised, your wrath has been kindled [against himself,per Apoc. James 1], your star has ascended [per A. DeConick], and your heart has grown strong." THAT is Gnosticism. Judas overcomes himself. Nowhere in this story is Jesus sacrificed.

I dismiss all the experts because they are all wrong, even Eisenman on this. I tried to enlighten him. (Good luck.) I have seen two Masters (John 6:40). I know that they are limited to their time only (John 9:4-5 and 14:6-7). Don't make the mistake of trying to extract one from his own generation. He will not help you. Masters must be living concurrently with the disciple to initiate into Word.

I think 'Jesus' is simply a reference to any Master's God-self. Whatever you call It, or Him/Her, the Son is not Jesus Christ. John 3:16 in the past tense proves the Son of God is not Jesus Christ, but the Holy Spirit. The proto-orthodox Church of the first several centuries did a very bad thing. They played up this "sacrifice" theme into a false sacrifice of the Master. because it allowed the Pauline Church to rid itself of James, the real savior, in favor of a one-size-fits-all martyred savior, Jesus Christ. Doesn't Judas mean Jew, and Jesus mean savior? This should be a hint it was not intended to be history, but is literature. I think all the names have this double meaning in the Gospels. I am no expert on the NT, but I do know mystic theology. I see it overwritten on every page of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They had other aims for what they wrote.

The only one more rejected than Eisenman is me. Doesn't matter. He is right, and I am right.
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal »

Kelyn wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 22:36
Sahansdal wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 09:58
Amina Yusuf wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 09:44 Fable. I don't believe a word of it. I think I will stick to the original historical facts.
Which 'facts' could you possibly mean? The New Testament is literature, not history.
Playing devil's advocate again. Whether the New Testament is literature or history is a matter of opinion, to which everyone is entitled. I still stand by my former statement(s). Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Thank you both for your comments!
Ha. Not likely. Most historians would certainly take exception to your characterization of what they do. Maybe we all watch too much TV.
User avatar
Lisa A Rayburn
Previous Member of the Month
Posts: 2977
Joined: 09 May 2018, 07:34
Currently Reading: Fluff Dragon
Bookshelf Size: 267
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-lisa-a-rayburn.html
Latest Review: Nightlord: Sunset by Garon Whited
Reading Device: B018QAYM7C

Post by Lisa A Rayburn »

Sahansdal wrote: 25 Jul 2019, 15:12
Kelyn wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 22:36
Sahansdal wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 09:58

Which 'facts' could you possibly mean? The New Testament is literature, not history.
Playing devil's advocate again. Whether the New Testament is literature or history is a matter of opinion, to which everyone is entitled. I still stand by my former statement(s). Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Thank you both for your comments!
Ha. Not likely. Most historians would certainly take exception to your characterization of what they do. Maybe we all watch too much TV.
:lol2: I must admit that historians would not appreciate that opinion. Hmmm....what is it they say though? History is written by the victors? I would say that's pretty along the lines of truth being perception!
jlrinc
Posts: 52
Joined: 08 Apr 2019, 03:50
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 11
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-jlrinc.html
Latest Review: Burn Zones by Jorge P. Newbery
Reading Device: 1400697484

Post by jlrinc »

Sahansdal wrote: 25 Jul 2019, 14:49
jlrinc wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 23:43
Sahansdal wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 09:58

Which 'facts' could you possibly mean? The New Testament is literature, not history.
Here is an interesting fact. The word for bears me in the phrase you will sacrifice the one who bears me is the same word used in homer for the horses who bear Achilles, This word has also been translated as the one who clothes me.. What all this means is is that Jesus says that Judas will offer for sacrifice the human body that bears the christ. This is gnostic idea about Christ it occurs over and over again in the nag hammadi texts. The early church fathers condemn it as heresy time and again in their heresologies. The epistle of john even says that those who believe it are antichrists. Any cursory study of gnosticism will show this. This is the only interpretation that anyone who has an expertise in gnosticism believes. This is how it has been translated by every expert in coptic who has translated it. How does Judas Bear Jesus in the dialogue? Why doesnt Jesus just say you will sacrifice yourself? Can the author point to a single other gnostic text where the word bear is used in this way,Can the author point to a single time when the word bear is used this way in english, in greek the word means carry in english it means carry , in what sense does judas carry Jesus? If Judas was James why are the two together in the gospel of John? Why is James not disguised as Judas in any other gnostic book? In the phrase the unspoken word the author says it can only be undertsood as mysticism. Does he know that the phrase originates with Plotinus a philosopher in middle platonism, the very foundation fo western rationalism? Does the author know that Eisenmann doesnt quote a single modern scholar in the entire 1000+ pages of his book on James? Why does the author of this book ignore the scholarship of every prominent scholar who has looked at the text and yet the author reads neither coptic or greek himself? I actually applaud your scepticism and your independent inquiry but you have to be much more careful in building your arguments. You have hunch that something isnt right in the orthodox teachings of Christianity and you are doubtless correct but you need to start from the ground and go up. When you write you need to prove yourself wrong , this means examining the work of scholars who know more than you and test your ideas against theirs. You need to be ruthless against your own intuitions. In your book you dismiss every expert in the field. If you find 3 scholars who disagree with your interpretation you need to find three others who support it. You need to challenge your own ideas with that kind of ferocity and if you do this honestly and with integrity what is still standing will stand for a very long time. Another good option for you (and I think you have a lot of potential to be a really good writer) is to write about what your really trying to say. I think you are using Judas as a proxy to for your own ideas, forget Judas forget James just tell us your ideas. I bet you have a lot to say about spirituality that nobody can refute. That would be an awesome book. gnosticism is an incredibly complex set of ideas, is the Gospel of Judas influenced by the ideas of the Carpocrations, Velencius, Marcion? How does Barbelos, the demiurge, the autogenes differ in Judas than in other works? Does it reflect earlier gnostic ideas or are they more fully evolved? These are questions any author on G. Judas should be able to answer. Those are a lot of work to find out. If you want to be an expert then it requires a lot of work. But you have expertise in anthoer field that you are not utilising, work that you have put into study with your teacher and that you probably are a real expert in. If gnosticism is what you want to work in you ahve to get caught up and I have no doubt you can but it will be very very hard. You are probably right now an expert in the field that you have studied write that book! I have no doubt that book will be a classic! Best wishes sincerely
It's Coptic for whatever the Greek original word was, and it doesn't refer to Christ. Read the NHC Apocalypse of Peter for example, section about Paul, the anti-nomian worker of death. "Carry" is a good translation. 'Judas' carries or contains the inner Man, Jesus. Gnostics hated sacrifice of others. 'Man' refers to the gnostic lower self, the "twelve elements" of Judas in gJudas 36.1-3 which are replaced by "someone else" -- the Master, Christ. Judas asked the question, "What will those baptized IN YOUR NAME do?" The Name is Nam or Shabd of the Sikhs, and mystic Satsangis like me. 'Name' of the Lord is Word, the Apophasis Logos. 'Name' isn't 'Jesus.' It has been incarnating since at least Seth (Genesis 4:26). The Master initiates and he waits for the disciple to progress to the point where he "sacrifices the man [the disciple's self] who bears me [the Master]." This is the answer from Jesus. There is no answer to the question of Judas at the end of page 55 until page 56 and this line spoken by Jesus. Judas will exceed the others and become one with the Master. The ode to the conqueror immediately follows, "Your horn has been raised, your wrath has been kindled [against himself,per Apoc. James 1], your star has ascended [per A. DeConick], and your heart has grown strong." THAT is Gnosticism. Judas overcomes himself. Nowhere in this story is Jesus sacrificed.

I dismiss all the experts because they are all wrong, even Eisenman on this. I tried to enlighten him. (Good luck.) I have seen two Masters (John 6:40). I know that they are limited to their time only (John 9:4-5 and 14:6-7). Don't make the mistake of trying to extract one from his own generation. He will not help you. Masters must be living concurrently with the disciple to initiate into Word.

I think 'Jesus' is simply a reference to any Master's God-self. Whatever you call It, or Him/Her, the Son is not Jesus Christ. John 3:16 in the past tense proves the Son of God is not Jesus Christ, but the Holy Spirit. The proto-orthodox Church of the first several centuries did a very bad thing. They played up this "sacrifice" theme into a false sacrifice of the Master. because it allowed the Pauline Church to rid itself of James, the real savior, in favor of a one-size-fits-all martyred savior, Jesus Christ. Doesn't Judas mean Jew, and Jesus mean savior? This should be a hint it was not intended to be history, but is literature. I think all the names have this double meaning in the Gospels. I am no expert on the NT, but I do know mystic theology. I see it overwritten on every page of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They had other aims for what they wrote.

The only one more rejected than Eisenman is me. Doesn't matter. He is right, and I am right.
You ignore the whole nag hammadi library which speaks only about Jesus christ the savior. You ignore completely the central doctrine of all of gnosticism. You say gnostics hated sacrifice of others. The gnostics believed that the god who created this world was evil and jesus was sacrificed to him. But Christ outsmarted this evil god because it was only the flesh that clothed the christ that was sacrificed. This is what all ancient gnosticism teaches. Christ was sacrificed because of the evil God the demiurge. But the demiurge was fooled because christ had already left the body when he was crucified. This is in virtually every gnostic text that deals with the crucifixion of christ and you just ignore what all of the texts say. This isnt even in question. read any gnostic account of the crucifixion and you will see christ laughing at the people who think he has died when only the one who bore him died. This is basic gnosticism. Its not even a question among peple who have looked into it seriously. the son is not jesus christ in gnosticism because god is evil in gnostic doctrine Jesus comes from another realm. Again for anyone who knows this isnt even a question it is a definitional account of gnosticism. I can say that pontius pilate was the savior and that everyone but me is wrong. It has no meaning. more imortantly it is not edifying. its an assumption you made without doing the work. I read Eisenmanns book, I dont agree with a lot of it but he has the worlds ear because he has done the work to back up his claims. The guy has read everything relevant in the original languages. Think Carrier is completely deluded by his own confirmation bias but the guy has done his work. here is my challenge to you. If I were you I'd want to know if I were right. I'd go back and page by page retraanslate the nag hammadi library from coptic while at the same time following along with a relevant commentary then translate g. Judas. If you do this then youve done the work. Its time consuming but its not really as hard as it sounds. Its one thing to say I;m right but its another thing to say I'm not wrong. saying I'm right is the starting point you dont finish till youve tried to prove yourself wrong and failed and that is a long hard slog, its psychologically risky but that is what makes it worthwhile. You may not be interested but I can tell you how to get started coptic is just the egyptian language using the greek alphabet. Its a simple language and the nag hammadi is only a few hundred pages long you could be finished translating in three years without driving yourself crazy doing it. but until you challenge yourself like that you dont know you are guessing.
Post Reply

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