Truth or Fable?

[Lisa A Rayburn]

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).

I agree that some parts were confusing and the (apparent) bias against Christianity was something I picked up on as well, although the author states (in this forum) that this is not the case. I've only looked at a couple of the reviews done on the book. Perhaps I will have a look at a few more and see what the consensus is. Thanks so much for stopping by and commenting!

[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).

I agree that some parts were confusing and the (apparent) bias against Christianity was something I picked up on as well, although the author states (in this forum) that this is not the case. I've only looked at a couple of the reviews done on the book. Perhaps I will have a look at a few more and see what the consensus is. Thanks so much for stopping by and commenting!

We all have our bias. But I am really here to present NEW evidence never before seen. I think I did that. Sorry if I didn't make the case. I really think that I did. I had no other reason to write the book. Maybe if you read my first book, The Bible Says Saviors - Obadiah 1:21, if may help fill in any missing pieces. That first book is twice the length of this one.

[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).

People who say they are confused need to start with my first book. https://www.amazon.com/Bible-says-Savio ... ler+robert

[CEReader]

I guess I am confused. If the author believes that the Gospel of Judas should be interpreted without a New Testament of the Bible bias, why would he use certain segments of the Bible to support the validity of the "true" story of what happened with Judas? If I believe that the Bible is mostly a misrepresented, heavily flawed, mistranslated document in many parts, then I would have a difficult time believing any of it.

[Robyn_original]

Honestly, religion is such a hot topic that I think a lot of authors try to come up with controversial topics and theories where ever they can, to cause a furor and get exposure for their writing. These days, any publicity is good publicity, and you can always find someone willing to support your views, no matter how controversial. I don't think this is based in any truth, but that's purely because I am not a believer anyway, so don't actually believe in any of it.

[Sahansdal]

Honestly, religion is such a hot topic that I think a lot of authors try to come up with controversial topics and theories where ever they can, to cause a furor and get exposure for their writing. These days, any publicity is good publicity, and you can always find someone willing to support your views, no matter how controversial. I don't think this is based in any truth, but that's purely because I am not a believer anyway, so don't actually believe in any of it.

Robyn,

Thanks for your honesty. But you really don't need to be religious to see the argument. It is not based on theology, but rather a textual analysis of NEW material we never had before. I think it is interesting just from an historical viewpoint. After all, there is no influence greater on Western culture than the Bible, especially the New Testament. Think Judas and the Jews and the Holocaust. Or gay marriage and abortion, or any number of things. The Founders all weighed in on the Bible. Jefferson wrote his own version.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

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).

I agree that some parts were confusing and the (apparent) bias against Christianity was something I picked up on as well, although the author states (in this forum) that this is not the case. I've only looked at a couple of the reviews done on the book. Perhaps I will have a look at a few more and see what the consensus is. Thanks so much for stopping by and commenting!

We all have our bias. But I am really here to present NEW evidence never before seen. I think I did that. Sorry if I didn't make the case. I really think that I did. I had no other reason to write the book. Maybe if you read my first book, The Bible Says Saviors - Obadiah 1:21, if may help fill in any missing pieces. That first book is twice the length of this one.

We do indeed. As I said before, the object here is to have a discussion. As the moderator, I have with-held my final view of the book other than a few things I noticed, such as the above statement, so as not to influence the discourse overly much. What is your first book about? I am not overly familiar with Obadiah though I have heard the name of course.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

I guess I am confused. If the author believes that the Gospel of Judas should be interpreted without a New Testament of the Bible bias, why would he use certain segments of the Bible to support the validity of the "true" story of what happened with Judas? If I believe that the Bible is mostly a misrepresented, heavily flawed, mistranslated document in many parts, then I would have a difficult time believing any of it.

It seems quite a few of us found something (or things) about the book confusing. You pose an interesting question there. I believe it was to indicate that the two (the Bible and the gospel of Judas) do agree on some things and/or can be integrated to come up with the 'true' story. The author himself is visiting the forum. Perhaps you can ask him directly!! His user name is Sahansdal. I agree with your last statement. If we are to believe that the Bible is so heavily flawed, how can we trust any part of it? The answer, however, is elusive. Thanks so much for stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

Honestly, religion is such a hot topic that I think a lot of authors try to come up with controversial topics and theories where ever they can, to cause a furor and get exposure for their writing. These days, any publicity is good publicity, and you can always find someone willing to support your views, no matter how controversial. I don't think this is based in any truth, but that's purely because I am not a believer anyway, so don't actually believe in any of it.

Unfortunately, it does seem so doesn't it? And yes, I also believe that if you look hard enough you can find someone willing to speak out for your views. The trick, however, is locating experts on the subject that are willing to do so. That is much more difficult to find. The book can be looked at from a purely philosophical/metaphysical viewpoint aside from belief. It is interesting in that way as well. I appreciate you stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!!

[LinaMueller]

It's a matter of faith and Misreading Judas didn't convince me that Judas was simply trying to accelerate the advancement of a mystical line of prophets. Fable.

[Sahansdal]

It's a matter of faith and Misreading Judas didn't convince me that Judas was simply trying to accelerate the advancement of a mystical line of prophets. Fable.

The whole idea of writing the book was to show that understanding what happened isn't simply a matter of faith. By comparing texts from the gnostic sources of the same era, one can determine that the gnostics had an original mastership succession story (the James Apocalypses, and the Gospel of Judas) and that the Bible authors of the New Testament Gospels copied it and inverted the sense of it to hide that succession. This m.o. is already well-known to specialists, known as 'Mythicists.' A number of good books have already appeared to show the Greek and pagan sources of New Testament Gospel and Acts stories. Try Pervo for a quick read of this type: https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Acts-Unr ... pervo+Acts
And Richard Carrier for a more scholarly treatment:https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Jesu ... carrier-20

[Sahansdal]

It's a matter of faith and Misreading Judas didn't convince me that Judas was simply trying to accelerate the advancement of a mystical line of prophets. Fable.

Thank you for stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!

Kelyn,

I'm seriously amazed that so many readers still think that there was a Judas. His being a stand-in is kinda central to the whole premise. Maybe next time, if there is a next time, I'll get it right!

[Lisa A Rayburn]

Kelyn,

I'm seriously amazed that so many readers still think that there was a Judas. His being a stand-in is kinda central to the whole premise. Maybe next time, if there is a next time, I'll get it right!

Please, please remember that this is a discussion. The opinions here are just that, opinions. Notwithstanding whether or not the book affected my beliefs, I enjoyed reading the alternative view that the book presented. Don't let the content of one forum turn you away from researching and writing!! I was blown away by your showing up in the forum by the way. Thanks so much for adding your responses to the discussion.

[LinaMueller]

Kelyn,

I'm seriously amazed that so many readers still think that there was a Judas. His being a stand-in is kinda central to the whole premise. Maybe next time, if there is a next time, I'll get it right!

Please, please remember that this is a discussion. The opinions here are just that, opinions. Notwithstanding whether or not the book affected my beliefs, I enjoyed reading the alternative view that the book presented. Don't let the content of one forum turn you away from researching and writing!! I was blown away by your showing up in the forum by the way. Thanks so much for adding your responses to the discussion.

I also enjoyed reading the alternative view that the book presented. My faith doesn't make me blind or compels me to ready only Christian literature. The main point here is that people should understand that Misreading Judas is just a different interpretation using different sources. There is no proof that X or Y source is better or more reliable. Some people here believe that there is a battle between science (truth) and faith (ignorance). It's not the case.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

Kelyn,

I'm seriously amazed that so many readers still think that there was a Judas. His being a stand-in is kinda central to the whole premise. Maybe next time, if there is a next time, I'll get it right!

Please, please remember that this is a discussion. The opinions here are just that, opinions. Notwithstanding whether or not the book affected my beliefs, I enjoyed reading the alternative view that the book presented. Don't let the content of one forum turn you away from researching and writing!! I was blown away by your showing up in the forum by the way. Thanks so much for adding your responses to the discussion.

I also enjoyed reading the alternative view that the book presented. My faith doesn't make me blind or compels me to ready only Christian literature. The main point here is that people should understand that Misreading Judas is just a different interpretation using different sources. There is no proof that X or Y source is better or more reliable. Some people here believe that there is a battle between science (truth) and faith (ignorance). It's not the case.

Beautifully put! Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts with us!