Truth or Fable?

[a9436]

More of a fable, but not exactly. I do not think we could take any religious book set in this era as truth - but it is interesting to add such perspectives to the body of knowledge which can then be critically investigated.

[AntonelaMaria]

The book is complete nonsense without any redeeming value as a work of scholarship. Consider the following: The author begins by analysing the phrase anaphasis logos meaning the unspoken word, which he assures us conventional scholars cant understand because they arent trained in mysticism. He then quotes a Hindu swami at length to try to explain it. Now by conventional scholar he means Dr Elaine Pagels, who wrote one of the earliest commentaries on the Gospel of Judas. She is an atheist, female PHd in Early Christianity, one of the least conventional New Testament scholars who is publishing today and one of only a handful of American scholars fluent in Coptic, the language that most of the gnostic texts are written in. A book outlining how Hindu mysticism influenced the Gnostic authors would be interesting but there are none because Hinduism had no influence at all on the Gnostics which makes most of the first chapter irrelevant and unsubstantiated conjecture. Besides this there is actually a long tradition of Jewish Mysticism that actually did influence the gnostics and Dr Pagels is more than familiar with it. The author is way out of his depth on this book.

100 % agree with you on this one.

[jlrinc]

Given that the author claims that Jesus is James, Judas is James and the beloved disciple is James here is the revised scene from the last supper according to the author


[21] When james had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
[22] Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.
[23] Now there was leaning on James' bosom, James
[24] Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that James should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
[25] James then lying on James' breast saith unto him, James, who is it?
[26] James answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to James
[27] And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said James unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

Keep in mind that according to the Author, James eats about a third of the last supper himself.

Hmm...that's not really what I got from reading it although I grant that parts were confusing. The way I understood it, the author was claiming that the name 'Judas' was actually an alias for James not that Jesus was actually James. I'll admit, I'm not exactly which 'beloved disciple' he was referring to. I appreciate you stopping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

I'm being facetious. The author keeps claiming that everyone is James and I just took it to an absurd conclusion to show why his ideas dont work. The beloved disciple is the unnamed disciple in the gospel of john and coincidentally he actually is James. There is some controversy concerning whether judas is an actual person or not but there is nothing to suggest that he is James and the fact that James and judas are said to have eaten the last supper with jesus it just becomes incredible to suggest that all three are disguises for James. I actually hate to come down so hard on the author but I've done some work in this area and while I dont agree with everything the experts in the field say the people who originally translated the text when it was found were called for a reason. The level of expertise these guys have in gnosticism is staggering. And the author just brushes them off as incompetent. Of course anyone can make mistakes but the idea that the scholars could have been so wrong about it just makes it difficult to take him seriously.

[Joe Hadithi]

I don't know really. Makes for an interesting story though.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

Hmm...that's not really what I got from reading it although I grant that parts were confusing. The way I understood it, the author was claiming that the name 'Judas' was actually an alias for James not that Jesus was actually James. I'll admit, I'm not exactly which 'beloved disciple' he was referring to. I appreciate you stopping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

I'm being facetious. The author keeps claiming that everyone is James and I just took it to an absurd conclusion to show why his ideas dont work. The beloved disciple is the unnamed disciple in the gospel of john and coincidentally he actually is James. There is some controversy concerning whether judas is an actual person or not but there is nothing to suggest that he is James and the fact that James and judas are said to have eaten the last supper with jesus it just becomes incredible to suggest that all three are disguises for James. I actually hate to come down so hard on the author but I've done some work in this area and while I dont agree with everything the experts in the field say the people who originally translated the text when it was found were called for a reason. The level of expertise these guys have in gnosticism is staggering. And the author just brushes them off as incompetent. Of course anyone can make mistakes but the idea that the scholars could have been so wrong about it just makes it difficult to take him seriously.

It would be interesting to look up the actual experts who were called in and see exactly what their backgrounds were. I'm not a religious scholar, so I read the book mostly out of curiosity. I think what made it more difficult for me to accept the premise was the fact that the author seemed biased away from and dismissive of Christianity rather than being objective about his findings. Now I'm curious to read a bit further on gnosticism! Thanks for stopping back by!

[jlrinc]

Hmm...that's not really what I got from reading it although I grant that parts were confusing. The way I understood it, the author was claiming that the name 'Judas' was actually an alias for James not that Jesus was actually James. I'll admit, I'm not exactly which 'beloved disciple' he was referring to. I appreciate you stopping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

I'm being facetious. The author keeps claiming that everyone is James and I just took it to an absurd conclusion to show why his ideas dont work. The beloved disciple is the unnamed disciple in the gospel of john and coincidentally he actually is James. There is some controversy concerning whether judas is an actual person or not but there is nothing to suggest that he is James and the fact that James and judas are said to have eaten the last supper with jesus it just becomes incredible to suggest that all three are disguises for James. I actually hate to come down so hard on the author but I've done some work in this area and while I dont agree with everything the experts in the field say the people who originally translated the text when it was found were called for a reason. The level of expertise these guys have in gnosticism is staggering. And the author just brushes them off as incompetent. Of course anyone can make mistakes but the idea that the scholars could have been so wrong about it just makes it difficult to take him seriously.

It would be interesting to look up the actual experts who were called in and see exactly what their backgrounds were. I'm not a religious scholar, so I read the book mostly out of curiosity. I think what made it more difficult for me to accept the premise was the fact that the author seemed biased away from and dismissive of Christianity rather than being objective about his findings. Now I'm curious to read a bit further on gnosticism! Thanks for stopping back by!

When the gospel of Judas was bought by national geographic they wanted to make sure that it was in fact what they thought they had. Among the first people they called was Bart Ehrman. I can't guess what they paid for it but it is priceless. To get a call from Nat Geo to verify an ancient text tells you something about Bart ehrmans reputation among people who know ancient texts. He has a talk on you tube about the gospel of Judas. Google it and you will hear from an actual expert in the field. When you hear his talk on this he will explain it in a way that is so clear and so obvious that there is nothing so obscure or mysterious to the book that anyone reasonably thoughtful can't follow him every step of the way. That how experts explain material. When you hear someone say that the material is so complex that they are the only people who really understand it they are almost always wrong. It is a fascinating subject and I encourage you to listen to Bart ehrman on it. Elaine pagels is another great scholar I don't know if she is on YouTube but she wrote a really good book on this.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

I'm being facetious. The author keeps claiming that everyone is James and I just took it to an absurd conclusion to show why his ideas dont work. The beloved disciple is the unnamed disciple in the gospel of john and coincidentally he actually is James. There is some controversy concerning whether judas is an actual person or not but there is nothing to suggest that he is James and the fact that James and judas are said to have eaten the last supper with jesus it just becomes incredible to suggest that all three are disguises for James. I actually hate to come down so hard on the author but I've done some work in this area and while I dont agree with everything the experts in the field say the people who originally translated the text when it was found were called for a reason. The level of expertise these guys have in gnosticism is staggering. And the author just brushes them off as incompetent. Of course anyone can make mistakes but the idea that the scholars could have been so wrong about it just makes it difficult to take him seriously.

It would be interesting to look up the actual experts who were called in and see exactly what their backgrounds were. I'm not a religious scholar, so I read the book mostly out of curiosity. I think what made it more difficult for me to accept the premise was the fact that the author seemed biased away from and dismissive of Christianity rather than being objective about his findings. Now I'm curious to read a bit further on gnosticism! Thanks for stopping back by!

When the gospel of Judas was bought by national geographic they wanted to make sure that it was in fact what they thought they had. Among the first people they called was Bart Ehrman. I can't guess what they paid for it but it is priceless. To get a call from Nat Geo to verify an ancient text tells you something about Bart ehrmans reputation among people who know ancient texts. He has a talk on you tube about the gospel of Judas. Google it and you will hear from an actual expert in the field. When you hear his talk on this he will explain it in a way that is so clear and so obvious that there is nothing so obscure or mysterious to the book that anyone reasonably thoughtful can't follow him every step of the way. That how experts explain material. When you hear someone say that the material is so complex that they are the only people who really understand it they are almost always wrong. It is a fascinating subject and I encourage you to listen to Bart ehrman on it. Elaine pagels is another great scholar I don't know if she is on YouTube but she wrote a really good book on this.

Thank you! I'll definitely look him up on YouTube! Thanks for the information and stopping back by!

[Sahansdal]

It would be interesting to look up the actual experts who were called in and see exactly what their backgrounds were. I'm not a religious scholar, so I read the book mostly out of curiosity. I think what made it more difficult for me to accept the premise was the fact that the author seemed biased away from and dismissive of Christianity rather than being objective about his findings. Now I'm curious to read a bit further on gnosticism! Thanks for stopping back by!

When the gospel of Judas was bought by national geographic they wanted to make sure that it was in fact what they thought they had. Among the first people they called was Bart Ehrman. I can't guess what they paid for it but it is priceless. To get a call from Nat Geo to verify an ancient text tells you something about Bart ehrmans reputation among people who know ancient texts. He has a talk on you tube about the gospel of Judas. Google it and you will hear from an actual expert in the field. When you hear his talk on this he will explain it in a way that is so clear and so obvious that there is nothing so obscure or mysterious to the book that anyone reasonably thoughtful can't follow him every step of the way. That how experts explain material. When you hear someone say that the material is so complex that they are the only people who really understand it they are almost always wrong. It is a fascinating subject and I encourage you to listen to Bart ehrman on it. Elaine pagels is another great scholar I don't know if she is on YouTube but she wrote a really good book on this.

Thank you! I'll definitely look him up on YouTube! Thanks for the information and stopping back by!

Both Pagels and Ehrman are in the consensus, or "good" Judas camp. There is another, the revisionists, like Louis Painchaud and April DeConick, who think the gnostic Judas is just as malevolent as ever. Both are wrong, and I go into why. At least Meyer, Ehrman and Pagels are in the positive camp, but still wrong on the reading of the text. I explain everything in detail in the book. Why don't you read it??? Then I welcome your Amazon review.

[Sahansdal]

Hmm...that's not really what I got from reading it although I grant that parts were confusing. The way I understood it, the author was claiming that the name 'Judas' was actually an alias for James not that Jesus was actually James. I'll admit, I'm not exactly which 'beloved disciple' he was referring to. I appreciate you stopping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

I'm being facetious. The author keeps claiming that everyone is James and I just took it to an absurd conclusion to show why his ideas dont work. The beloved disciple is the unnamed disciple in the gospel of john and coincidentally he actually is James. There is some controversy concerning whether judas is an actual person or not but there is nothing to suggest that he is James and the fact that James and judas are said to have eaten the last supper with jesus it just becomes incredible to suggest that all three are disguises for James. I actually hate to come down so hard on the author but I've done some work in this area and while I dont agree with everything the experts in the field say the people who originally translated the text when it was found were called for a reason. The level of expertise these guys have in gnosticism is staggering. And the author just brushes them off as incompetent. Of course anyone can make mistakes but the idea that the scholars could have been so wrong about it just makes it difficult to take him seriously.

It would be interesting to look up the actual experts who were called in and see exactly what their backgrounds were. I'm not a religious scholar, so I read the book mostly out of curiosity. I think what made it more difficult for me to accept the premise was the fact that the author seemed biased away from and dismissive of Christianity rather than being objective about his findings. Now I'm curious to read a bit further on gnosticism! Thanks for stopping back by!

I can tell you. There were nine in all on the NGS Gospel of Judas Advisory Committee. All but one, Francois Gaudard, were Christian Institution affiliated, Christian, or formerly so, as is Bart Ehrman, an admitted AGNOSTIC. None was a GNOSTIC, or Mystic, as I am. Gaudard is a Coptic Egyptologist Had any of them been as familiar as I am with Gnostic teachings, I would not have had to write to them to tell them that they had missed the sacrifice OF JUDAS. I'm sorry you didn't read the book, or take it seriously. I'm not on a Christian-bashing crusade, just telling it like it is. Somebody's got to do it! The source of the Bible was not history as the Church would have us believe, but the gnostic texts of Egypt. Genesis, a very mystical work, has Egyptian origins, too, I was just reading (Aeon Byte Gnostic radio). Meyer (deceased) was one of the best on Gnostic teaching, but when I told him by phone, he was polite, but unconvinced. as one might expect of a Presbyterian. These scholars are ALL Orthodox Christian. That's why they do it. I am a practicing Mystic, or 'Gnostic,' and have been all my adult life.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

I can tell you. There were nine in all on the NGS Gospel of Judas Advisory Committee. All but one, Francois Gaudard, were Christian Institution affiliated, Christian, or formerly so, as is Bart Ehrman, an admitted AGNOSTIC. None was a GNOSTIC, or Mystic, as I am. Gaudard is a Coptic Egyptologist Had any of them been as familiar as I am with Gnostic teachings, I would not have had to write to them to tell them that they had missed the sacrifice OF JUDAS. I'm sorry you didn't read the book, or take it seriously. I'm not on a Christian-bashing crusade, just telling it like it is. Somebody's got to do it! The source of the Bible was not history as the Church would have us believe, but the gnostic texts of Egypt. Genesis, a very mystical work, has Egyptian origins, too, I was just reading (Aeon Byte Gnostic radio). Meyer (deceased) was one of the best on Gnostic teaching, but when I told him by phone, he was polite, but unconvinced. as one might expect of a Presbyterian. These scholars are ALL Orthodox Christian. That's why they do it. I am a practicing Mystic, or 'Gnostic,' and have been all my adult life.

First of all, let me assure you that no offense is meant, either by myself as the moderator of the post or, I am certain, by anyone who has joined in the discussion. But that is exactly what this is, a discussion. All opinions are therefore welcome, including yours. I am extremely gratified that you have joined us! Welcome.

[jlrinc]

I'm being facetious. The author keeps claiming that everyone is James and I just took it to an absurd conclusion to show why his ideas dont work. The beloved disciple is the unnamed disciple in the gospel of john and coincidentally he actually is James. There is some controversy concerning whether judas is an actual person or not but there is nothing to suggest that he is James and the fact that James and judas are said to have eaten the last supper with jesus it just becomes incredible to suggest that all three are disguises for James. I actually hate to come down so hard on the author but I've done some work in this area and while I dont agree with everything the experts in the field say the people who originally translated the text when it was found were called for a reason. The level of expertise these guys have in gnosticism is staggering. And the author just brushes them off as incompetent. Of course anyone can make mistakes but the idea that the scholars could have been so wrong about it just makes it difficult to take him seriously.

It would be interesting to look up the actual experts who were called in and see exactly what their backgrounds were. I'm not a religious scholar, so I read the book mostly out of curiosity. I think what made it more difficult for me to accept the premise was the fact that the author seemed biased away from and dismissive of Christianity rather than being objective about his findings. Now I'm curious to read a bit further on gnosticism! Thanks for stopping back by!

I can tell you. There were nine in all on the NGS Gospel of Judas Advisory Committee. All but one, Francois Gaudard, were Christian Institution affiliated, Christian, or formerly so, as is Bart Ehrman, an admitted AGNOSTIC. None was a GNOSTIC, or Mystic, as I am. Gaudard is a Coptic Egyptologist Had any of them been as familiar as I am with Gnostic teachings, I would not have had to write to them to tell them that they had missed the sacrifice OF JUDAS. I'm sorry you didn't read the book, or take it seriously. I'm not on a Christian-bashing crusade, just telling it like it is. Somebody's got to do it! The source of the Bible was not history as the Church would have us believe, but the gnostic texts of Egypt. Genesis, a very mystical work, has Egyptian origins, too, I was just reading (Aeon Byte Gnostic radio). Meyer (deceased) was one of the best on Gnostic teaching, but when I told him by phone, he was polite, but unconvinced. as one might expect of a Presbyterian. These scholars are ALL Orthodox Christian. That's why they do it. I am a practicing Mystic, or 'Gnostic,' and have been all my adult life.

I did read your book. You are a good writer but you basically got everything wrong. I don't mean to be so harsh but take the interpretation of the one who bears me. The is is a reference not to Judas but to Jesus. This goes back to the first epistle of john she the author talks about this who deny Christ came in the flesh. There was a gnostic group called docetics who believed that Jesus was just a man and was inhabited at baptism by the Christ who came from the pleronoma and left at the death of Jesus. One who bears me is the flesh Jesus who bears the spirit Christ so when he tells Judas you will sacrifice the one who bears me he is telling Judas that he will not die because he is not the flesh jesus it is the flesh Jesus that Judas will sacrifice it is the flesh Jesus who bears the Christ.
That's a major problem in your book what you claim is simply not supported. Plus you claim that Judas is the name to hide James. That may be true for the new testament writers but the gnostics don't hide James in any of the gnostic texts. The reason he is hidden in the new testament is that James would compete with the roman church based on peter. There was a big problem because the original church was run by James and the roman church lost converts to the church in Jerusalem so they had to wright him out. But the gnostics had no reason at all to hide James. They were heretics and didn't care what Rome thought that's why no gnostic texts try to disguise James. Nor would the author of the gospel of Judas have needed to hide james. You can't point to another gnostic gospel that hides James's identity. There are none. Why would gospel of Judas writers have hidden James. Eisanman had some good ideas but but a lot of his book is simply speculation based on flimsy evidence. That Judas is James is one of those. If Judas is hiding anyone it seems to me likely that Judas is Thomas.

[Sahansdal]

I can tell you. There were nine in all on the NGS Gospel of Judas Advisory Committee. All but one, Francois Gaudard, were Christian Institution affiliated, Christian, or formerly so, as is Bart Ehrman, an admitted AGNOSTIC. None was a GNOSTIC, or Mystic, as I am. Gaudard is a Coptic Egyptologist Had any of them been as familiar as I am with Gnostic teachings, I would not have had to write to them to tell them that they had missed the sacrifice OF JUDAS. I'm sorry you didn't read the book, or take it seriously. I'm not on a Christian-bashing crusade, just telling it like it is. Somebody's got to do it! The source of the Bible was not history as the Church would have us believe, but the gnostic texts of Egypt. Genesis, a very mystical work, has Egyptian origins, too, I was just reading (Aeon Byte Gnostic radio). Meyer (deceased) was one of the best on Gnostic teaching, but when I told him by phone, he was polite, but unconvinced. as one might expect of a Presbyterian. These scholars are ALL Orthodox Christian. That's why they do it. I am a practicing Mystic, or 'Gnostic,' and have been all my adult life.

First of all, let me assure you that no offense is meant, either by myself as the moderator of the post or, I am certain, by anyone who has joined in the discussion. But that is exactly what this is, a discussion. All opinions are therefore welcome, including yours. I am extremely gratified that you have joined us! Welcome.

I have been following it, but the moderators only yesterday allowed me to post in real time. I'll be immediately available from now on. It has been frustrating since the forum started.

[Sahansdal]

It would be interesting to look up the actual experts who were called in and see exactly what their backgrounds were. I'm not a religious scholar, so I read the book mostly out of curiosity. I think what made it more difficult for me to accept the premise was the fact that the author seemed biased away from and dismissive of Christianity rather than being objective about his findings. Now I'm curious to read a bit further on gnosticism! Thanks for stopping back by!

I can tell you. There were nine in all on the NGS Gospel of Judas Advisory Committee. All but one, Francois Gaudard, were Christian Institution affiliated, Christian, or formerly so, as is Bart Ehrman, an admitted AGNOSTIC. None was a GNOSTIC, or Mystic, as I am. Gaudard is a Coptic Egyptologist Had any of them been as familiar as I am with Gnostic teachings, I would not have had to write to them to tell them that they had missed the sacrifice OF JUDAS. I'm sorry you didn't read the book, or take it seriously. I'm not on a Christian-bashing crusade, just telling it like it is. Somebody's got to do it! The source of the Bible was not history as the Church would have us believe, but the gnostic texts of Egypt. Genesis, a very mystical work, has Egyptian origins, too, I was just reading (Aeon Byte Gnostic radio). Meyer (deceased) was one of the best on Gnostic teaching, but when I told him by phone, he was polite, but unconvinced. as one might expect of a Presbyterian. These scholars are ALL Orthodox Christian. That's why they do it. I am a practicing Mystic, or 'Gnostic,' and have been all my adult life.

I did read your book. You are a good writer but you basically got everything wrong. I don't mean to be so harsh but take the interpretation of the one who bears me. The is is a reference not to Judas but to Jesus. This goes back to the first epistle of john she the author talks about this who deny Christ came in the flesh. There was a gnostic group called docetics who believed that Jesus was just a man and was inhabited at baptism by the Christ who came from the pleronoma and left at the death of Jesus. One who bears me is the flesh Jesus who bears the spirit Christ so when he tells Judas you will sacrifice the one who bears me he is telling Judas that he will not die because he is not the flesh jesus it is the flesh Jesus that Judas will sacrifice it is the flesh Jesus who bears the Christ.
That's a major problem in your book what you claim is simply not supported. Plus you claim that Judas is the name to hide James. That may be true for the new testament writers but the gnostics don't hide James in any of the gnostic texts. The reason he is hidden in the new testament is that James would compete with the roman church based on peter. There was a big problem because the original church was run by James and the roman church lost converts to the church in Jerusalem so they had to wright him out. But the gnostics had no reason at all to hide James. They were heretics and didn't care what Rome thought that's why no gnostic texts try to disguise James. Nor would the author of the gospel of Judas have needed to hide james. You can't point to another gnostic gospel that hides James's identity. There are none. Why would gospel of Judas writers have hidden James. Eisanman had some good ideas but but a lot of his book is simply speculation based on flimsy evidence. That Judas is James is one of those. If Judas is hiding anyone it seems to me likely that Judas is Thomas.

I read your private messages but saw no way to respond. Online Book Club has a lot of that kind of thing.
Contact me at judaswasjames at aol dot com
I want to hear what it is you think I need to hear about James.

Judas is the sacrifice. He is asking Jesus on the bottom of page 55, "What will those who are baptized IN MY NAME do? The Name is WORD. It is a spiritual thing. Nowhere is he answered by Jesus until he tells Judas, "You will exceed them all, for you will sacrifice the man who bears me." Jesus is the Master, who is "BORNE" by the disciple Judas. They merge, just as he is told on page 36, earlier, when Jesus says "There is another who will take your place [Jesus], so that the twelve elements ['Judas'] may again become complete in their god [Yaldabaoth]." This is another way to see that Judas is not real. Matthias is not mentioned here and should have been if the Bible were original. In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus first tells the disciples what will happen "tomorrow" -- they will be tortured. This is all internal spirit stuff. Archons will attack, within. You need to know Gnostic teaching to know what this all means. Maybe you do.

James is hidden in the Gospel of Judas. Probably because it was dangerous to cross the Pauline Church that had Roman protection. Paul knew Herodians and likely Caesar's house, too. If he indeed was real. James is Judas because in other texts, James is stoned by fellow disciples, just as the vision of Judas has it in the Gospel of Judas. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.v ... i.lxx.html
No other character of the time is recorded as having been stoned by fellow disciples - except James.

None of these texts is historical. Including the gnostic ones. But they are closer to the truth. This is not a kind of writing we are used to today. True is whatever they wanted it to be.

Judas is also James in a new fragment. I go into it in the book.

Judas is James in the Gospel narrative from First and Second Apocalypses of James. Nearly every single tell-tale detail there comes from the original mastership succession narrative of the Apocalypses. Apoc. Peter, too. The three denials comes from there: http://gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html

No Gnostic would ever borrow from a story of human sacrifice. They deplored it. That is clear from gJudas. But the orthodoxy certainly had reason to hide James. Eisenman is not wrong. He shows the connections of STEPHEN to James (Acts 7). His connecting Judas to James in Acts 1 is why I wrote the book.

Eisenman alone ends Christianity as a viable authority on anything. His work is unassailable. I have read it all. He is right. That is WHY he has collected so many enemies. It is why I am not taken seriously, either, even by him. I am a SATSANGI. I practice what these texts are about. The literature is secondary. Ferreting out the truth is all that counts. I go wherever I have to to find it. Sant Mat is the truth. rssb.org and Scienceofthesoul.org

I think you may be right about Judas Thomas. Eisenman takes 40 pages to go into all the name games around disciples names, etc. I have not got a firm grasp of how the Gospel of Judas fits in time and purpose. It (with the Apocalypses) is the SOURCE of the Bible 'Betrayal of Christ.' I am certain of it. But I still have questions.

[Verna Coy]

I'd have to say fable (the only part about that though that doesn't work, is that most fables included a 'moral of the story' which made sense at the end). I don't believe this author was on track at all, and his book attacks Christianity (among other viewpoints) without substantiating its claims in a clear, easy-to-follow manner. It excels at creating confusion (which is a word you will see most in the comments by the Online Book Club Reviewers who have very carefully read its contents).

[Sahansdal]

I'd have to say fable (the only part about that though that doesn't work, is that most fables included a 'moral of the story' which made sense at the end). I don't believe this author was on track at all, and his book attacks Christianity (among other viewpoints) without substantiating its claims in a clear, easy-to-follow manner. It excels at creating confusion (which is a word you will see most in the comments by the Online Book Club Reviewers who have very carefully read its contents).

That was not Eva Darrington's 4 out of 4-star conclusion.