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

[Kyoks]

The book clearly explains if Judas didn't take that action that most think was bad, then Jesus Christ wouldn't be killed for us and our sins.

[Sahansdal]

The book clearly explains if Judas didn't take that action that most think was bad, then Jesus Christ wouldn't be killed for us and our sins.

This is the author. No he didn't. How did you get that?

[Clemens Nickleby]

I have not read this book, and do not intend to for one basic reason. The whole underlying premise is sympathy for the devil. Anyone who had a dear and trusted friend who then betrayed them to their enemies, even though they were innocent of any wrongdoing, would be really clear that it was an act born out of evil. Just think in your own life how painful it was when you met with betrayal of some sort. The beauty of the gospel is that even Judas could have been forgiven. Peter was. Redemption came through Jesus' death and resurrection, not Judas' betrayal. True, Judas had a role, but it didn't have to be him and he could have been redeemed. Instead, he would rather die than repent. Think of a person who betrayed you, and they are there for all of us, and think of them choosing suicide over repenting and asking your forgiveness. Nothing mystical about that, or even praiseworthy. Just plain, sheer, evil. And I didn't need a new-testament bias for that analysis, just an understanding from my own experience of betrayal. Do we really want to posit that doing evil brings about good? Overcoming evil by doing good sounds more to the point. Jesus had a gospel, Judas didn't.

[Sahansdal]

I have not read this book, and do not intend to for one basic reason. The whole underlying premise is sympathy for the devil. Anyone who had a dear and trusted friend who then betrayed them to their enemies, even though they were innocent of any wrongdoing, would be really clear that it was an act born out of evil. Just think in your own life how painful it was when you met with betrayal of some sort. The beauty of the gospel is that even Judas could have been forgiven. Peter was. Redemption came through Jesus' death and resurrection, not Judas' betrayal. True, Judas had a role, but it didn't have to be him and he could have been redeemed. Instead, he would rather die than repent. Think of a person who betrayed you, and they are there for all of us, and think of them choosing suicide over repenting and asking your forgiveness. Nothing mystical about that, or even praiseworthy. Just plain, sheer, evil. And I didn't need a new-testament bias for that analysis, just an understanding from my own experience of betrayal. Do we really want to posit that doing evil brings about good? Overcoming evil by doing good sounds more to the point. Jesus had a gospel, Judas didn't.

Well, if you aren't reading my book, and know nothing about my thesis, what makes you think you are qualified to comment here?

[jlrinc]

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.

No, the life expectancy those days. Was not 40 years.. The average life expectancy was 40 years. What's the difference? The average life expectancy includes the high prevalence of children who died before turning 5. This brings the average life expectancy way down because children had a high likelihood of dying of diseases before antibiotics and vaccines were available. The truth is that if you made it to18 your life expectancy was about the same as it is now, high 70s and probably hasn't changed much in 15000 years. This 40 year old thing is a pernicious myth.How long did they expect to live on biblical times? There is a verse in psalms that says the number of the days of a mans life is 70 years and if by reason of strength what boast is there of that? So they expected to live to be about seventy or eighty. The gerousia of Athens at about the same time was a council of elders who were at least 60 to be eligible so they had about the same life expectancy. And modern archeological evidence points to the same.

[Sahansdal]

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.

No, the life expectancy those days. Was not 40 years.. The average life expectancy was 40 years. What's the difference? The average life expectancy includes the high prevalence of children who died before turning 5. This brings the average life expectancy way down because children had a high likelihood of dying of diseases before antibiotics and vaccines were available. The truth is that if you made it to18 your life expectancy was about the same as it is now, high 70s and probably hasn't changed much in 15000 years. This 40 year old thing is a pernicious myth.How long did they expect to live on biblical times? There is a verse in psalms that says the number of the days of a mans life is 70 years and if by reason of strength what boast is there of that? So they expected to live to be about seventy or eighty. The gerousia of Athens at about the same time was a council of elders who were at least 60 to be eligible so they had about the same life expectancy. And modern archeological evidence points to the same.

Itinerant fishermen didn't speak (or write!) the kind of classic Greek that the Gospel authors used. They were master wordsmiths, not experts with nets. No one knows who wrote the Gospels, all of them, even gnostic.

[jhollan2]

Setting aside the debate over religion which is inevitable with a book like this, I just didn't really like it. I gave it 2 stars in my review. The way the author makes the claim that everyone else in history is blind and missed this fact that is so obvious to him just struck me as cultish. Also the density of the text and the interweaving of sources and exposition made this book difficult to follow along with.

[Debottam_55]

Although I didn't read the whole book but I was really intrigued by the sample that was provided. I think this books covers a very sinister issue and has a modern approach to a medieval situation. Overall, this book should be a great read and I'm looking forward to it.

[Sahansdal]

Although I didn't read the whole book but I was really intrigued by the sample that was provided. I think this books covers a very sinister issue and has a modern approach to a medieval situation. Overall, this book should be a great read and I'm looking forward to it.

Please consider writing a review. I could use careful reviews on Amazon.

[Misael Carlos]

I think readers who can be objective and open minded will find this book cool to read. Judas may be understood or misunderstood but whatever he may be, he was played an important role to what Roman Catholics like me believe in.

[Niv123]

I guess this novel would come off as controversial as it re-tells one of the most widely spread stories that comes under the Christian belief. The name Judas has almost become synonymous to 'traitor', but the author puts forth an argument that revolves around Judas's mental state and what went on behind the scenes. It was a good read as it did present unique thoughts and ideas.

[Niv123]

It's always nice to read about varied explanations behind well known events. Everybody does have a streak of goodness in them and I love how the author has taken the effort to imagine an alternative mindset for Judas's actions.

[Saffron]

Let me just say I was asked to read Misreading Judis because it fell under my favorite genres on my online book club recommendations. Where I read books and then give my honest review. I enjoy reading nonfiction books and books about religion, mine and others. Having stated that I want to say as I read this book all I could think was how it felt as if he wrote this book just for the wow factor. Nothing in the book backs up and he claims that he states that proves Judas is the Messiah. He takes quotes from different versions of the Bible different Kodex and other literature that basically says the same thing just in a different way. But like all scriptures in the Bible and other books relating to religion you can interpret it and twist it to make it mean would you want it to me. For example in the 17 and 1800s they thought God condone slavery because she bop and had a servant who ran away and was told by God that she must honor her mistress and do her mistress is bidding and they use that to say that slavery was condone by God. We all know or at least the majority of us know that slavery isn't condone vibration of people nor by Jesus Christ. He puts a lot of scripture in this book to prove an provable point he says that Judas is James the justice and another guy who has no name but makes it clear that it it isn't James just us it's another guy with no name...so yeah! When it comes to miss reading Judas I have so much to say if only I could put my thoughts into words I guess because the book overwhelmed me I'm trying to write a review about it it's just getting me flustered. It's basically a book about a religious conspiracy theory that has no facts to back it up. The fluidity of this book is nonexistent I even went back and skimmed over it again thinking I must've not understood it, but no this book is not cohesive. I wish could speak to the author to ask him to explain to me how these hundred different scriptures prove Judas is the real Messiah if those who don't know we're talking about Judas who turned Jesus over to King Herod and the Jews who ultimately young him on the cross. I'm sure even the agnostics know the story. Well maybe you will like the book and are smarter than me and can understand this. I did not but everyone get something different from a book, so again maybe you'll understand and like the book. I did not!

[Sahansdal]

Let me just say I was asked to read Misreading Judis because it fell under my favorite genres on my online book club recommendations. Where I read books and then give my honest review. I enjoy reading nonfiction books and books about religion, mine and others. Having stated that I want to say as I read this book all I could think was how it felt as if he wrote this book just for the wow factor. Nothing in the book backs up and he claims that he states that proves Judas is the Messiah. He takes quotes from different versions of the Bible different Kodex and other literature that basically says the same thing just in a different way. But like all scriptures in the Bible and other books relating to religion you can interpret it and twist it to make it mean would you want it to me. For example in the 17 and 1800s they thought God condone slavery because she bop and had a servant who ran away and was told by God that she must honor her mistress and do her mistress is bidding and they use that to say that slavery was condone by God. We all know or at least the majority of us know that slavery isn't condone vibration of people nor by Jesus Christ. He puts a lot of scripture in this book to prove an provable point he says that Judas is James the justice and another guy who has no name but makes it clear that it it isn't James just us it's another guy with no name...so yeah! When it comes to miss reading Judas I have so much to say if only I could put my thoughts into words I guess because the book overwhelmed me I'm trying to write a review about it it's just getting me flustered. It's basically a book about a religious conspiracy theory that has no facts to back it up. The fluidity of this book is nonexistent I even went back and skimmed over it again thinking I must've not understood it, but no this book is not cohesive. I wish could speak to the author to ask him to explain to me how these hundred different scriptures prove Judas is the real Messiah if those who don't know we're talking about Judas who turned Jesus over to King Herod and the Jews who ultimately young him on the cross. I'm sure even the agnostics know the story. Well maybe you will like the book and are smarter than me and can understand this. I did not but everyone get something different from a book, so again maybe you'll understand and like the book. I did not!

So sorry it did not make any sense to you, cecemi. Send me your contact information to judaswasjames at aol dot com and I'll mail you a refund for the purchase price.

[Victoria zindo Jones]

Well this story i would recommend to most religious leaders who still has numerous question regarding Judas character in the bible has it would widen their understanding