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

[Dragonsend]

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

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

[Dragonsend]

I agree that the New Testimate is an outlier in comparison. Although the theme of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible/Tanak) in my opinion is not focused on meditation. But focused on our history, the major and minor prophets, that segue into our need for a savior that is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. For the blood of animals and rituals could not atone for our sins. Only through Christ can the relationship be restored, because of his love for us. Only the holy spirit of the Trinity can gain access to your heart, all my words are but head knowledge without his intervention. Thank you for your reply, I enjoy having venues to share each other's believes and have a good discussion.

Thank you or your comment. I enjoy that you mention that the Old Testament is a history and how true that all is but head knowledge without his intervention!

[Sahansdal]

Sahansdal I KNOW Jesus is my savior. And I know the Bible is the inspired word of God so I learn what I need to know from studying it. But thanks for your input on my post!

B Creech,
Thank you for posting. What is it Jesus means by John 6:40? We know he meant see with eyes, because of 6:36 just before, where he said they DID "see" but didn't believe. The phrase, "every one who sees" is pretty straightforward. When was it you "saw" Jesus with your own eyes?

[Sahansdal]

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

I have to ask, "validated by physical evidence" -- "scientific proof" -- "cross referenced correctly" -- "proven biblical works and evidence"? What are you talking about? Even the Gnostics have no physical evidence. The support comes from textual evidence. You have to start with a real expert, like Dr. Robert Eisenman. Compare texts side-by-side and then sort things out.

[Amanda Deck]

I always consider Jeremiah 8:8 in any discussion of the Bible: "'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

[Sahansdal]

I always consider Jeremiah 8:8 in any discussion of the Bible: "'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

Right. The "law of the Lord" is the Word. And only the living Masters have it.

[Sahansdal]

I believe there's a reason the Gnostic Gospels weren't included in the Holy Scriptures/Holy Bible. The Scriptures are true; the Gnostic Gospels can't be proved to be true as far as I know. The Gospel of Judas is portrayed, if I understand right, as a Gnostic Gospel. Only the Scriptures can tell us the truth about Judas the disciple turned betrayer. And Jesus knew that Judas was going to be His betrayer.

Yeah I think your comment is true. The author may be relying too much on the credibility of the Gospel of Judas, which doesn't have the same credibility as the other gospels which were written as first hand accounts.

You are evidently not aware that the consensus view now is that none of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. It would not be likely in any event, because life-expectancy in those days was something like 40 years. So they would have to have been little kids following Jesus around. Kids fluent and literate in excellent Greek, which is even less likely.

[janinewesterweel]

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

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

[Fazzier]

The author seems to be having some arguments most Christians are not accustomed to. Personally, I find Wahler's argument that the beliefs we've been holding about Jesus Christ of Nazareth to be startling. I haven't read the book though. I'll still read it out of curiosity to see whether whatever the author claims is concrete. It is until then that I'll gladly rate this controversial book.

[Sharon2056]

Iam not yet through with the book but I must say the subject matter raises eyebrows. I'm trying to understand his point of view. I think it's an interesting read.

[elizaron878]

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

[elizaron878]

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

[Sahansdal]

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

I tried to stay away from personal views and to stick with verifiable facts, like written verses. Comparing these texts, like the gnostic ones from Nag Hammadi, to the Bible yields startling clues to how the canon was formed.

[Brenda Creech]

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

[Sahansdal]

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!

Ask moderators to start the new thread? - the Author