OnlineBookClub.org

Sahansdal wrote: ↑04 May 2019, 09:17

Ellylion wrote: ↑03 May 2019, 14:43 The author is not the first one to start a controversial discussion addressing Gnostic beliefs. I guess Dan Brown made them a popular trend still years ago

I am no to be compared to Dan Brown. I hate that! He writes fiction. I'm interested in explaining in the best way possible what is really happening with the ancient texts and what the Church did.

WaryReader wrote: ↑03 May 2019, 10:42 I think he just wants to get his unorthodox opinion out there. If he knows anything about the Christian faith, he should know that his book conveys a pretty controversial message, but maybe he wants to express something that he found profound and worthwhile in a professional way.

Yes, the latter.

Michgal 32 wrote: ↑03 May 2019, 03:42 What do you think could be the author's inspiration in writing this book?

I think a lot of his inspiration would be from the research that he did. When he was able to find some interesting ideas from the non-canonical scriptures, he was able to develop an interesting enough idea to write a whole book out of. I respect the author for being able to write such a well-written book based off of these ideas.

Sahansdal wrote: ↑04 May 2019, 11:07

WaryReader wrote: ↑03 May 2019, 10:42 I think he just wants to get his unorthodox opinion out there. If he knows anything about the Christian faith, he should know that his book conveys a pretty controversial message, but maybe he wants to express something that he found profound and worthwhile in a professional way.

Yes, the latter.

Yes, I agree with that comment. The idea is pretty controversial.

I think the author is interested in presenting his findings, like a research. The effort and time he has put into this work is evident. And the book reads like a scientific paper with references. Considering this, I think the author's inspiration would probably have been the deep rooted hatred of a single man and the curiosity whether he actually was hateful - whether Judas actually deserves the way he is treated. That being said, the author also connects Christianity to gnostic thoughts, so perhaps he was also inspired by their spiritual teaching.

I am guessing that his background as a Gnostic and his belief in the Gospel of Judas is what interested him in the beginning. Particularly with the Gnostic goal of self-sacrifice in mind, he questioned the validity of the version in the New Testament and centered his research around that point.

The author is Gnostic and have views that differ from the more broadly accepted beliefs in Christianity. The Gnostic view seems to aim at the Bible not being a history, but a metaphorical guide to salvation and redemption. The idea that Judas was misframed as a betrayer would be very attractive to a Gnostic trying to change the perception of the Bible as a straight history. Judas is a well known character of the Bible. Even individuals without a religion have probably heard of Judas at some point, even if it is just through pop culture references. By choosing such a large figure, and such a polarizing subject, the author would have a greater chance of sowing seeds of interest and curiosity to a broader audience. If he would have chosen a lesser known story, or it he would have sampled several instances of Bible stories being misread, I feel the book would have lost its gravitas.

I read a little on gnostic beliefs and they do have a way of reinterpreting things, sometimes in a very unhealthy light. Do I believe the author uses this as a foundation? So far yes, for I have not finished reading but yes from what I have learned I believe he is definitely influenced by these beliefs.

srividyag1 wrote: ↑04 May 2019, 21:30 I think the author is interested in presenting his findings, like a research. The effort and time he has put into this work is evident. And the book reads like a scientific paper with references. Considering this, I think the author's inspiration would probably have been the deep rooted hatred of a single man and the curiosity whether he actually was hateful - whether Judas actually deserves the way he is treated. That being said, the author also connects Christianity to gnostic thoughts, so perhaps he was also inspired by their spiritual teaching.

I am a Satsangi with the Radha Soami Satsang Beas, and have been since 1975. That's a long time. My understanding of mysticism has only grown since then. I was a Christian before that, and a 24/7 one, living with brothers in a brothers house. I don't do anything halfway! The teachings of RSSB are IDENTICAL to Gnostic teachings, right down to the words they use, if you will believe it. Anami Desh of the Sant Mat Masters, the Region with no name, is "the region never called by any name" in the Gospel of Judas. How is that for a match! Yes the cosmology is the same. Even Paul "knew a man" (likely James, not himself, as so many may think) who went to the third heaven. Sant Mat and Gnostic teaching hold that there are seven heavens. The ticket to ride is the Word (Bible), or Unspoken Melody (Sant Mat), the Apophasis Logos of the gnostic Gospels of Thomas and Judas. Btw, this is the Name of the Lord in the Tanak (Old Testament). It is all the same teaching!!!

A G Darr wrote: ↑05 May 2019, 16:30 The author is Gnostic and have views that differ from the more broadly accepted beliefs in Christianity. The Gnostic view seems to aim at the Bible not being a history, but a metaphorical guide to salvation and redemption. The idea that Judas was misframed as a betrayer would be very attractive to a Gnostic trying to change the perception of the Bible as a straight history. Judas is a well known character of the Bible. Even individuals without a religion have probably heard of Judas at some point, even if it is just through pop culture references. By choosing such a large figure, and such a polarizing subject, the author would have a greater chance of sowing seeds of interest and curiosity to a broader audience. If he would have chosen a lesser known story, or it he would have sampled several instances of Bible stories being misread, I feel the book would have lost its gravitas.

The genesis of Judas is an interesting question -- one I have not fully nailed down. He is definitely James, but how this all came about is not clear. There was NO Judas -- he is purely a cover for a real person, James the Just. Dr. Robert Eisenman was the first to point this out, in Acts 1. (He also shows why 'Stephen' in Acts 7 is also a cover for James.) I took it from there and looked in the Gospels for more. I found James everywhere. That is what my two books (on Amazon) are about. It is curious why Eisenman wasn't more interested in Judas as James in "The Betrayal." This is by far the most interesting part of the saga. I can't get enough. The details are mind-blowing. No question at all - 'Judas' was James, and it was all for a reason: to hide his coming.

Honestly, the idea of Judas not being the "bad guy" is not entirely new, as many of you stated here as well. But I haven't yet seen any books dedicated to Judas personally. It is great that somebody is willing to change the perspective of commonly accepted ideas.

I don't think he has got any harmful intentions in writing this book. Simply he has opened a new window to expand the ways of human thinking, and it is up to readers to take it in any direction that they want

I think that the author's inspiration may be liked to Gnosticism, I think it may just be the author's way of bringing across the message that things are not always as they seem and that one should look under the surface of what information is presented to us. In the case of Judas, I think of him as a lesson to be learnt from, no matter how you spin it, betrayal is a horrible thing and Judas betrayed the one he claimed to love. He betrayed his faith and then instead of facing that, he chose to take his own life. Everyone is free to express their own views on the matter, I just choose to agree to disagree.

It could almost be observed that the inspiration was an extension of the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. Although, I think the author really just wanted to share his findings and raise awareness of what he perceives to be the truth. It is great to have an open discussion on topics like this. However, I feel if the delivery would of been more neutral and not as abrasive, it would have sparked better discussion.

Sahansdal wrote: ↑06 May 2019, 23:37

A G Darr wrote: ↑05 May 2019, 16:30 The author is Gnostic and have views that differ from the more broadly accepted beliefs in Christianity. The Gnostic view seems to aim at the Bible not being a history, but a metaphorical guide to salvation and redemption. The idea that Judas was misframed as a betrayer would be very attractive to a Gnostic trying to change the perception of the Bible as a straight history. Judas is a well known character of the Bible. Even individuals without a religion have probably heard of Judas at some point, even if it is just through pop culture references. By choosing such a large figure, and such a polarizing subject, the author would have a greater chance of sowing seeds of interest and curiosity to a broader audience. If he would have chosen a lesser known story, or it he would have sampled several instances of Bible stories being misread, I feel the book would have lost its gravitas.

The genesis of Judas is an interesting question -- one I have not fully nailed down. He is definitely James, but how this all came about is not clear. There was NO Judas -- he is purely a cover for a real person, James the Just. Dr. Robert Eisenman was the first to point this out, in Acts 1. (He also shows why 'Stephen' in Acts 7 is also a cover for James.) I took it from there and looked in the Gospels for more. I found James everywhere. That is what my two books (on Amazon) are about. It is curious why Eisenman wasn't more interested in Judas as James in "The Betrayal." This is by far the most interesting part of the saga. I can't get enough. The details are mind-blowing. No question at all - 'Judas' was James, and it was all for a reason: to hide his coming.

I have a hard time accepting James as Judas, the numbers do not add up as far as apostle wise and though there are sameness in the way they die and other sameness, they are distinct and different actual writings by each. This isn't even disputed in your writings.