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.
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Re: Truth or Fable?

Post by Sahansdal »

supernatural143 wrote: 31 Jul 2019, 00:33 I am giving the author respect for his opinion and research. I have a different view. I could not convince him to believe in what I believe in. He couldn't convince me to believe in what he believes in.
The book isn't about faith, but instead, literary facts.
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 »

supernatural143 wrote: 31 Jul 2019, 00:33 I am giving the author respect for his opinion and research. I have a different view. I could not convince him to believe in what I believe in. He couldn't convince me to believe in what he believes in.
I think this is an excellent and balanced stance to take. I recognize that the author has put much time and research into his works as well, but I also realize that it should come as no surprise that not everyone is convincible or even open to being convinced. Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!
User avatar
raikyuu
Posts: 303
Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 21:19
Favorite Book: <a href="http://forums.onlinebookclub.org/shelve ... =3079">The Republic</a>
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 95
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-raikyuu.html
Latest Review: Who killed Chatunga? by Muvhaki Tasu

Post by raikyuu »

This all boils down to arguing on which interpretation is "correct." Personally, I can't find myself to agree to interpretations that establish themselves as "facts."
-rk
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal »

raikyuu wrote: 31 Jul 2019, 22:46 This all boils down to arguing on which interpretation is "correct." Personally, I can't find myself to agree to interpretations that establish themselves as "facts."
No it DOESN'T. Read all the details of the Betrayal of Christ as inversions of the many details of James's mastership succession in the Nag Hammadi Apocalypses and the Peter Apocalypse.
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/1ja.html
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html (end of paragraph one, last line, 12 words, three details of Peter's three denials of inner vision in meditation BY JESUS)
User avatar
SavannaEGoth
Posts: 185
Joined: 28 Mar 2019, 12:25
Favorite Book: Warriors
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 34
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-savannaegoth.html
Latest Review: Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler

Post by SavannaEGoth »

Sahansdal wrote: 01 Aug 2019, 00:22
raikyuu wrote: 31 Jul 2019, 22:46 This all boils down to arguing on which interpretation is "correct." Personally, I can't find myself to agree to interpretations that establish themselves as "facts."
No it DOESN'T. Read all the details of the Betrayal of Christ as inversions of the many details of James's mastership succession in the Nag Hammadi Apocalypses and the Peter Apocalypse.
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/1ja.html
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html (end of paragraph one, last line, 12 words, three details of Peter's three denials of inner vision in meditation BY JESUS)
I don't mean to be rude, but I think you need to take a step back and acknowledge and accept the fact that there really truthfully is no sure fire way to determine which of these ancient texts, written in a time none of us were alive, when people could write just about anything they wanted and no one alive can fact check them. It's nice that you have faith in what you believe and that you want to share something you're passionate about with others, but telling everyone they're just wrong and that you're 100% correct in all of your theoretical claims isn't going to win people over. It's going to push people away and make them less likely to listen to what you're sharing.
"I'm going to die whatever you do, but I'm not afraid."
- Yellowfang Warriors: Rising Storm
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal »

SavannaEGoth wrote: 01 Aug 2019, 01:49
Sahansdal wrote: 01 Aug 2019, 00:22
raikyuu wrote: 31 Jul 2019, 22:46 This all boils down to arguing on which interpretation is "correct." Personally, I can't find myself to agree to interpretations that establish themselves as "facts."
No it DOESN'T. Read all the details of the Betrayal of Christ as inversions of the many details of James's mastership succession in the Nag Hammadi Apocalypses and the Peter Apocalypse.
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/1ja.html
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html (end of paragraph one, last line, 12 words, three details of Peter's three denials of inner vision in meditation BY JESUS)
I don't mean to be rude, but I think you need to take a step back and acknowledge and accept the fact that there really truthfully is no sure fire way to determine which of these ancient texts, written in a time none of us were alive, when people could write just about anything they wanted and no one alive can fact check them. It's nice that you have faith in what you believe and that you want to share something you're passionate about with others, but telling everyone they're just wrong and that you're 100% correct in all of your theoretical claims isn't going to win people over. It's going to push people away and make them less likely to listen to what you're sharing.
What you are advising me to do is to negate what I have learned. My "theory" as you say it, is not only based on comparing texts, gnostic to orthodox, with an understanding of mystic teaching, which is my contribution, but is also based on Dr. Eisenman's amazing work on the Dead Sea Scrolls Pesherim. I don't need it, but his findings corroborate that James was purposefully overwritten in the NT narrative, that Pauline forces were responsible, and that Judas is the character primarily overwriting him. I cover a lot of his extensive findings. 'Stephen' covers the death of James.

First of all, no Gnostic writer would ever think to borrow from an orthodox narrative of anything, what to say of human sacrifice. The Gnostics hated sacrifice, especially human sacrifice. Reading the Gospel of Judas makes that clear. But there remains equally clear parallels between the Apocalypses of James and the NT Gospels and Acts, particularly the 'Betrayal of Christ.' It occurs at just the point in the narrative that a successor to Jesus would be expected, but it is a successor TO JUDAS. The "office" is "episcopate," not a replacement Apostle, which ISN'T an "office". (Acts 1:20ff) Why should I step back when I am sure the original is the gnostic story of succession? It's important. This discovery brings the teachings of the Bible into the light, exposing it as disinformation. It is the only religious teaching i know of that is purposely written to mislead. Other teachings, like Sant Mat, echo the teachings of the mystic Gnostics, who taught that James succeeded his predecessor (I think it was John the Baptist).

We know the Gnostics wrote first because of tells like "Hail, BROTHER!" paralleled in the Synoptics as "Hail, MASTER!" Why change it? -- Because of late orthodox virgin-birth theology. They had to counter the gnostic assertion of James and Jesus's brotherhood (which, btw, they explicitly say is not familial but mystical). Also, the Apocalypse of PETER has three essential elements of the "denial of Christ by Peter" but it is the denial OF Peter, BY Jesus. This is the same inversion m.o. that Eisenman found for the blood salvation theology of Paul compared with the blood PURITY rules of the Essenes at Qumran. It is about denial of seeing within in meditation. Three denials before the cock crows is story making. The original is the gnostic story, not the orthodox one. Some of the parallel tells are word-for-word, such as "the flesh is weak," "stripped and rising [fleeing] naked," and "armed multitudes seizing." The original mystic meaning is ALWAYS the one that makes better sense, not the story-telling fantasy orthodox version. Eisenman's findings are the most interesting thing I have ever read on any subject. That's saying a lot. I met him. He is the smartest man I ever met.

I also have confirmation of mastership succession directly from seeing it happen in my own line of Masters. My Master passed in 1990 and was immediately succeeded by the current Radha Soami Master, Baba Gurinder Singh. I'm still thrilled from having seen him Tuesday this week in Petaluma, CA. John precedes Jesus in John 1. John1:6-13 about giving power to become Sons of God is about JOHN, not Jesus. Jesus is not introduced until John 1:14-15. I learned this fact directly from a Master.

I'm understandably proud to have been the first to make these discoveries, but if it stays this way with me the only one to know it, I will have failed. So, here I am! It is for you that I do this.
User avatar
SavannaEGoth
Posts: 185
Joined: 28 Mar 2019, 12:25
Favorite Book: Warriors
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 34
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-savannaegoth.html
Latest Review: Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler

Post by SavannaEGoth »

And it's understandable that you would be excited to have made a possible connection in the texts that you have studied, and I can respect wanting to share it with others. Claiming other people's religions to be fantasy and deceitful and whatever else, however, doesn't exactly get people on your side. You hear it everywhere. Everyone believes their religion or lack thereof to be the truth. Conviction is fine and all, but flat out telling everyone discussing your book that they're wrong and their beliefs are wrong is much more polarizing and exclusive rather than inclusive and inviting, as I'm sure you are wanting your response to be.
"I'm going to die whatever you do, but I'm not afraid."
- Yellowfang Warriors: Rising Storm
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal »

SavannaEGoth wrote: 01 Aug 2019, 21:54 And it's understandable that you would be excited to have made a possible connection in the texts that you have studied, and I can respect wanting to share it with others. Claiming other people's religions to be fantasy and deceitful and whatever else, however, doesn't exactly get people on your side. You hear it everywhere. Everyone believes their religion or lack thereof to be the truth. Conviction is fine and all, but flat out telling everyone discussing your book that they're wrong and their beliefs are wrong is much more polarizing and exclusive rather than inclusive and inviting, as I'm sure you are wanting your response to be.
Whatever it is any of us thinks is the Path, or the Truth is not important. Truth is what it is. Master finds you, not the other way around. It isn't my job to do his.

This may come as a surprise to you: I don't care about my effect. I just find the details about all this to be fascinating. It is my fascination that I want to share, not my faith. Faith is personal, facts are facts. I'm sharing what can be verified by anyone. I want to share what I know to be true from my unique perspective as a one-time 24/7 born-again Evangelical and as a now-practicing Sant Mat mystic. I know what I am talking about because I live it.
User avatar
SavannaEGoth
Posts: 185
Joined: 28 Mar 2019, 12:25
Favorite Book: Warriors
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 34
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-savannaegoth.html
Latest Review: Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler

Post by SavannaEGoth »

I'm not surprised in the slightest, actually. And though, again, I can appreciate your dedication to your beliefs, simply believing something is true is absolutely not the same as it 100% being true. All I was trying to say is that you can believe as much as you want in this stuff, but it's no more correct than anyone else's beliefs you're denouncing.
"I'm going to die whatever you do, but I'm not afraid."
- Yellowfang Warriors: Rising Storm
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 »

"...Truth is what is..."


No offense intended, but I have to agree with SavannaEGoth on this one. I am delighted that you have found something on which you feel true conviction and fully understand your wish to share it and to convince everyone of its 'truth' or factualness. But simply proclaiming repeatedly that yours is the only truth does not invite open discussion. Instead, it shuts it down. You can't expect that everyone in the world is simply going to accept what you have put down as truth. Especially with something this controversial, you had to realize that this would be a hard sell to many people. In my humble opinion, discussion rather than proclamation would be more of an asset to your cause.
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal »

SavannaEGoth wrote: 02 Aug 2019, 00:48 I'm not surprised in the slightest, actually. And though, again, I can appreciate your dedication to your beliefs, simply believing something is true is absolutely not the same as it 100% being true. All I was trying to say is that you can believe as much as you want in this stuff, but it's no more correct than anyone else's beliefs you're denouncing.
You are arguing past me. I am not attacking Faith! We all have faith in something. My whole reason for writing this was to show that knowing what is true about the Bible DOESN'T depend on faith or interpretation. We can compare side-by-side the texts which were provably the source and the derived, and one for sure was one, and the other the other. Which is which? One One tradition's 'stuff' is true by textual comparison, one is not.

Not only am I not "denouncing other's beliefs," I am not talking about them at all.
User avatar
SavannaEGoth
Posts: 185
Joined: 28 Mar 2019, 12:25
Favorite Book: Warriors
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 34
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-savannaegoth.html
Latest Review: Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler

Post by SavannaEGoth »

Kelyn wrote: 02 Aug 2019, 01:17
"...Truth is what is..."


No offense intended, but I have to agree with SavannaEGoth on this one. I am delighted that you have found something on which you feel true conviction and fully understand your wish to share it and to convince everyone of its 'truth' or factualness. But simply proclaiming repeatedly that yours is the only truth does not invite open discussion. Instead, it shuts it down. You can't expect that everyone in the world is simply going to accept what you have put down as truth. Especially with something this controversial, you had to realize that this would be a hard sell to many people. In my humble opinion, discussion rather than proclamation would be more of an asset to your cause.
Very eloquently and concisely put.
"I'm going to die whatever you do, but I'm not afraid."
- Yellowfang Warriors: Rising Storm
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal »

Kelyn wrote: 02 Aug 2019, 01:17
"...Truth is what is..."


No offense intended, but I have to agree with SavannaEGoth on this one. I am delighted that you have found something on which you feel true conviction and fully understand your wish to share it and to convince everyone of its 'truth' or factualness. But simply proclaiming repeatedly that yours is the only truth does not invite open discussion. Instead, it shuts it down. You can't expect that everyone in the world is simply going to accept what you have put down as truth. Especially with something this controversial, you had to realize that this would be a hard sell to many people. In my humble opinion, discussion rather than proclamation would be more of an asset to your cause.
Kelyn,
I have zero interest in "discussion" of this. I have better things to do. I spent years investigating this and have paid my dues. If you have QUESTIONS, I am all ears. I know I am right on certain fundamental facts and I BACK THESE UP with citation. If someone doesn't like what the facts SHOW, TOO BAD. I am sorry. I did more than the scholars did for you! I would appreciate some respect for disproving their nonsense. One exception is DR. ROBERT EISENMAN. He doesn't care to "discuss" either. I am with him.

Btw, I am not trying to capitalize on this. I give away a pdf of this to anyone who sends me their email address, through my website. judaswasjames.com

I just enjoy the thrill of sharing something fascinating. Screw the rest. I don't really feel like being here anymore. My book says it all. I'm tired of the attacks.
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: 08 Aug 2019, 21:35
Kelyn,
I have zero interest in "discussion" of this. I have better things to do. I spent years investigating this and have paid my dues. If you have QUESTIONS, I am all ears. I know I am right on certain fundamental facts and I BACK THESE UP with citation. If someone doesn't like what the facts SHOW, TOO BAD. I am sorry. I did more than the scholars did for you! I would appreciate some respect for disproving their nonsense. One exception is DR. ROBERT EISENMAN. He doesn't care to "discuss" either. I am with him.

Btw, I am not trying to capitalize on this. I give away a pdf of this to anyone who sends me their email address, through my website. judaswasjames.com

I just enjoy the thrill of sharing something fascinating. Screw the rest. I don't really feel like being here anymore. My book says it all. I'm tired of the attacks.
I deeply regret that you feel you have been disrespected and/or attacked in this forum. For myself, no offense was ever intentional. I apologize if offense was taken. I must add, however, that the primary intent of the forum from post one has been discussion, not to convince or change the mind of others toward or away from any point(s). I thank you for your interest and presence in the forum.
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal »

Kelyn wrote: 09 Aug 2019, 00:43
Sahansdal wrote: 08 Aug 2019, 21:35
Kelyn,
I have zero interest in "discussion" of this. I have better things to do. I spent years investigating this and have paid my dues. If you have QUESTIONS, I am all ears. I know I am right on certain fundamental facts and I BACK THESE UP with citation. If someone doesn't like what the facts SHOW, TOO BAD. I am sorry. I did more than the scholars did for you! I would appreciate some respect for disproving their nonsense. One exception is DR. ROBERT EISENMAN. He doesn't care to "discuss" either. I am with him.

Btw, I am not trying to capitalize on this. I give away a pdf of this to anyone who sends me their email address, through my website. judaswasjames.com

I just enjoy the thrill of sharing something fascinating. Screw the rest. I don't really feel like being here anymore. My book says it all. I'm tired of the attacks.
I deeply regret that you feel you have been disrespected and/or attacked in this forum. For myself, no offense was ever intentional. I apologize if offense was taken. I must add, however, that the primary intent of the forum from post one has been discussion, not to convince or change the mind of others toward or away from any point(s). I thank you for your interest and presence in the forum.
All this discussion is doing is reinforcing the notion that my intent was to end a religion because of misleading thread titles like this one, when it really was to simply inform others of new information that they are not getting from clueless corrupted biblical studies scholars. Thanks for your efforts, just the same, Kelyn!
Post Reply

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