What is your opinion on the author using the apocrypha?

Don Pwai · Post by **Don Pwai** » 17 Jul 2019, 12:27

Yes, the author was overly focused on the Gospel of Judas. I believe such was a dangerous approach since he neglected the other provisions of the bible. The bible ought to be read holistically.

Sahansdal · Post by **Sahansdal** » 17 Jul 2019, 14:46

Don Pwai wrote: ↑17 Jul 2019, 12:27 Yes, the author was overly focused on the Gospel of Judas. I believe such was a dangerous approach since he neglected the other provisions of the bible. The bible ought to be read holistically.

A great man once said (a Master, actually), "If you lose your keys on the street, don't waste time looking in the alley, even if the light is better."

AlexandriaDR · Post by **AlexandriaDR** » 20 Jul 2019, 12:47

A lot of the apocrphra were dismissed because of a lack of corroboration in other, accepted books. I think the author's reliance on a gnostic gospel will greatly weaken, if not completely dismiss, his argument with a Christian audience, because Christians believe these books to be false or at least unfounded. Still, from a historical or even perhaps a philosophical perspective, i think some readers would it just as valid a source as any other religious text and therefore, it would not hurt his argument.

Sahansdal · Post by **Sahansdal** » 20 Jul 2019, 19:12

AlexandriaDR wrote: ↑20 Jul 2019, 12:47 A lot of the apocrphra were dismissed because of a lack of corroboration in other, accepted books. I think the author's reliance on a gnostic gospel will greatly weaken, if not completely dismiss, his argument with a Christian audience, because Christians believe these books to be false or at least unfounded. Still, from a historical or even perhaps a philosophical perspective, i think some readers would it just as valid a source as any other religious text and therefore, it would not hurt his argument.

I think the whole idea of my book is that it doesn't matter WHAT one 'thinks' of the apocrypha or gnostic texts. The case is that there IS a correlation to the canon and that it can only be one-way: the gnostics gave birth to the canon. Did you see that? I am not asking if you necessarily agree, just if you got that. I believe I present good evidence for why. No Gnostic would ever borrow from an orthodox story of human sacrifice.

I am asking everyone to review on Amazon. I'm OK if not 5 star. But... ')
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15246 ... 5K32J6D6Y1

supernatural143 · Post by **supernatural143** » 31 Jul 2019, 00:10

May it be fiction or nonfiction, there are a lot of books which uses Bible stories. I don't mind if the author uses the "Gospel of Judas" to prove his point. After all, it depends upon the readers to believe and accept his beliefs or disagree with them.

Sahansdal · Post by **Sahansdal** » 31 Jul 2019, 13:08

supernatural143 wrote: ↑31 Jul 2019, 00:10 May it be fiction or nonfiction, there are a lot of books which uses Bible stories. I don't mind if the author uses the "Gospel of Judas" to prove his point. After all, it depends upon the readers to believe and accept his beliefs or disagree with them.

If you read it, would you consider a review on Amazon? https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15246 ... 5K32J6D6Y1

10mile72 · Post by **10mile72** » 28 Oct 2019, 11:11

For a gnostic, there's no problem with relying on books from the apocrypha; for conservative Christians, however, there's a big problem, as they feel those books are not reliable.

Sahansdal · Post by **Sahansdal** » 28 Oct 2019, 15:02

10mile72 wrote: ↑28 Oct 2019, 11:11 For a gnostic, there's no problem with relying on books from the apocrypha; for conservative Christians, however, there's a big problem, as they feel those books are not reliable.

Isn't that convenient. I don't like what other books say, so only mine is correct. That's what Christians believe. Without reason.

10mile72 · Post by **10mile72** » 29 Oct 2019, 15:28

Sahansdal wrote: ↑28 Oct 2019, 15:02
10mile72 wrote: ↑28 Oct 2019, 11:11 For a gnostic, there's no problem with relying on books from the apocrypha; for conservative Christians, however, there's a big problem, as they feel those books are not reliable.
Isn't that convenient. I don't like what other books say, so only mine is correct. That's what Christians believe. Without reason.

That is convenient, I wonder what the criteria is?

Sahansdal · Post by **Sahansdal** » 29 Oct 2019, 16:27

10mile72 wrote: ↑29 Oct 2019, 15:28
Sahansdal wrote: ↑28 Oct 2019, 15:02
10mile72 wrote: ↑28 Oct 2019, 11:11 For a gnostic, there's no problem with relying on books from the apocrypha; for conservative Christians, however, there's a big problem, as they feel those books are not reliable.
I will tell you what mine is. DO THE TEACHINGS MAKE SENSE? Why was anyone born to die BEFORE.Jesus was born, never to see or hear of him as savior for all? All true Masters, like gnostic ones, have predecessors.

Isn't that convenient. I don't like what other books say, so only mine is correct. That's what Christians believe. Without reason.
That is convenient, I wonder what the criteria is?

Aftab Yunis · Post by **Aftab Yunis** » 21 Jun 2020, 03:32

The dire need in this phenomenon is to look at the four Gospels in the Bible that are harmonize with one claim that Jesus died for our sins, rose from the dead and sitteth at the right hand of Father the almighty. Furthermore, in this perspective whenever we come to understand anything from the Bible we always see what does the whole Bible say for any particular topic, this is how we develop our theology looking at the entire Bible. So, how comes Gospel of Judas can take the canonical position without harmonizing it with the whole Bible? This is the reason the writer is heavily relying on this resource alone because he could not find any evidence from the Canon. Thus, to consider this Gospel part of Canon itself is wrong to imagine.

Sahansdal · Post by **Sahansdal** » 21 Jun 2020, 12:01

What??? Didn't you read the whole book? I quote my OWN Master, for heaven's sake. Charan Singh can 'harmonize' the teachings with all traditions EXCEPT the phony one, which is orthodox Christianity. The OLD Testament is just fine. It is TRUE. Christians misuse it to justify their false teaching. Read Douglas Del Tondo, Jesus Words Only. He has a website where you can read what a Christian says about this! Paul is the "Spouter of Lying" (Dead Sea Scrolls). Jesus 'himself' condemns his teachings in numerous passages. I cite them in another book I wrote, The Bible Says Saviors - Obadiah 1:21. Paul is the "ravening wolf" of Genesis 47, I think it is. He is cited by Jesus as a false prophet in Matthew 24 and Revelation 2:14, etc. Read Del Tondo! And also Dr. Robert Eisenman, of Dead Sea Scrolls discovery fame. He knows the Pauling teachings are phony. His work extensively proves how it corrupted the teachings.

Moneybag · Post by **Moneybag** » 29 Jun 2022, 09:42

Lhisa wrote: ↑08 May 2019, 15:08 I have mixed feelings about the author's use of apocrypha in the books. As many of you have mentioned, many books were omitted from the Bible and if they are true works then it would be an injustice not to include them and use them as evidence to answer questions that many Christians have. On the other hand however, there is the possibility that these works were not inspired by God. In the case that this is true, it would make all his arguments equivalent to a house built upon sand.