Analyzing: What verse in this book would you challenge or defend?

[Verna Coy]

You make a very good point with this example. Misreading Judas does take fragments of biblical verses rather than the whole of the verse, to use as substantiation. It doesn't work when the whole of a verse is read (the way it should be). Great observation!
This is a perfect example of why Gnostic writings were not permitted to be included in the Bible. They don't align with the texts that DO align together. That alignment is a way of proof all by itself. When it comes to historic documentation, science and archeology likes to gather as many examples as possible of first hand accounts, verifiable, before comparing them with one another to again verify their authenticity.
Misreading Judas doesn't do that, it simply twists fragments of scripture and applies them then to the ideas that the author is trying to put over.

[Chrystal Oaks]

I have to say the entire book was a challenge. I thought Wahler was extremely confusing in presenting his proof. I need to continue searching and questioning all the ideas he presented. I'm not even clear if Wahler believes Jesus to be a real person or a myth; he was very vague.

[Diana Lowery]

It sounds to me like the author has at least accomplished getting his readers to read and search on their own, and that has to be a positive outcome at least.

[Bluebird03]

It sounds to me like the author has at least accomplished getting his readers to read and search on their own, and that has to be a positive outcome at least.

Yes, Diana, I agree that Wahler's views are at least thought provoking enough to inspire many readers to look further into "The Bible" and compare what is written there to what Wahler asserts.

[nooregano]

It sounds like this book has an interesting way of interpreting scripture. I can see how both passages mentioned in this thread can be taken out of context when only partially discussed. I think I would find this book very frustrating to read.

I agree with this. I think interpretations can only be fairly done after reading an entire book, and getting the "metaphorical" feel of it. It cannot start with specifics, because the specifics are part of the whole.

[nooregano]

It sounds to me like the author has at least accomplished getting his readers to read and search on their own, and that has to be a positive outcome at least.

This is a great point, and I agree! This book probably does a great job of getting someone to search for an alternate truths and critically examine previously held beliefs.

[Helena91]

It sounds to me like the author has at least accomplished getting his readers to read and search on their own, and that has to be a positive outcome at least.

It would seem so but I honestly do not believe that was the author's intention. All the same, it was a good thing he made us all go back to the bible

[freakkshowx]

"He has raised his heel against me." His version would literally say He has raised Jacob against me. He then says no that meant James, then goes on to say no that's Judas. So the discrepancies in translation here are truly a stretch!! That was truly a head scratcher for me. And many places where it says that Jesus was talking about James. Or Judas. When it clearly says he Jesus. Just for clarity heel and Jacob have similar meanings. It's so confusing I can barely write coherently about it!!!

I struggled with clarity as well. Half of the time, the way he wrote about certain characters was so confusing that I couldn't tell who he was referring to. Part of me thinks that this may have been on purpose to further twist the historical evidence to fit his view. I would like to bring up the fact that half of the scriptures used from The Gospel of Judas were broken and lost, allowing the author to just insert whatever he wanted within the gaps multiple times in the book. If a student tried to turn in a book report where they just filled in chunks like that, I wouldn't even grade it.

[Dragonsend]

[quote=freakkshowx post_id=1181213 time=1558621870 user_id=363113]
[quote=Dragonsend post_id=1174691 time=1557869861 user_id=1230099]
"He has raised his heel against me." His version would literally say He has raised Jacob against me. He then says no that meant James, then goes on to say no that's Judas. So the discrepancies in translation here are truly a stretch!! That was truly a head scratcher for me. And many places where it says that Jesus was talking about James. Or Judas. When it clearly says he Jesus. Just for clarity heel and Jacob have similar meanings. It's so confusing I can barely write coherently about it!!!
[/quote]

I struggled with clarity as well. Half of the time, the way he wrote about certain characters was so confusing that I couldn't tell who he was referring to. Part of me thinks that this may have been on purpose to further twist the historical evidence to fit his view. I would like to bring up the fact that half of the scriptures used from The Gospel of Judas were broken and lost, allowing the author to just insert whatever he wanted within the gaps multiple times in the book. If a student tried to turn in a book report where they just filled in chunks like that, I wouldn't even grade it.
[/quote]

I agree , I truly believe that the author stretched to fit his theory to evidence. Unfortunately , this makes the book an unenjoyable mess. Trying to fill in the gaps of something that is missing? I think that the translation should stand alone. As I thought that the translation by itself pointed more to proof of his betrayal than any thing else, missing parts and all.

[Washboard]

In reading this book there were specific verses that the author identified that were inverted. Opposite of what I have learned, contradicting and attempting to put doubt in what they have taught me. Keeping all this in mind I will further analyze the verses the author provided and entertain and challenge his theory. Therefore, I am asking what verse in this book stands out the most for you and what about it do you know makes the most impact and influence you to stand by your belief. The following is an example but not the final determiner for me.

Using New King James Version, Mathew 26:39, The Prayer in the Garden,
He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed saying, “Oh My Father, if it is possible,
let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless not as I will, but as You will.”

Using the Kindle Version of Misreading Judas, Mathew 26:39, Page 35
“Let this cup pass from me.”

Ah, selective editing. That is the only way to find out what the real truth is! Cut and paste words to get what you want out of it.

I did not have enough biblical knowledge when I started reading this book to catch things like this. Thank you for pointing it out. I suspected it was happening, but wasn't sure.

[Washboard]

In reading this book there were specific verses that the author identified that were inverted. Opposite of what I have learned, contradicting and attempting to put doubt in what they have taught me. Keeping all this in mind I will further analyze the verses the author provided and entertain and challenge his theory. Therefore, I am asking what verse in this book stands out the most for you and what about it do you know makes the most impact and influence you to stand by your belief. The following is an example but not the final determiner for me.

Using New King James Version, Mathew 26:39, The Prayer in the Garden,
He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed saying, “Oh My Father, if it is possible,
let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless not as I will, but as You will.”

Using the Kindle Version of Misreading Judas, Mathew 26:39, Page 35
“Let this cup pass from me.”

I am all for dissecting a section of text to look at the pieces for deeper meaning, but not at the expense of the whole. Observing only small sections while removing their context can lead to incorrect analysis like this. Thank you for pointing this out. I would not have noticed it on my own, due to my lack of Biblical knowledge.

[Erin Painter Baker]

One of the important things to remember is that there have been over 450 different translations of the Bible put out in English. 450. Many Churches no longer use the King James versions because you have to remember, those versions were put out specifically as one of the ways to further separate the Anglican Church from the Catholic Church.
But I do wish Wahler has stuck with one single translation of the Bible for most of his points. Or, in many cases, it could have helped make his arguments stronger if he had shown the different interpretations of certain passages in multiple versions of the Bible. King James, New King James, NIV, English Standard, New Living Translation, New American, etc.
But most scholars use the New Revised Standard Version, and so, if he really was trying to make a point to Biblical Scholars, that is the version he should have used throughout.

I used to have a youth group pastor who was an actual Biblical scholar. One of the things I appreciated about him most was that he would often point out the different translations of particular Bible verses and talk about why each of those could be thought valid based on the original language the book was written in. And then he would talk us through the verse to think about it and determine which translation we thought was the most accurate.

But based on the original question, I don't know if there is a Bible verse presented that I would defend or challenge Wahler's interpretation of, because I am not a Biblical scholar and do not speak ancient Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Coptic, or any of the other languages the original Bible books were written in. I would most challenge his assertion that further study of the New Testament cannot progress until HIS interpretation is accepted as true. As someone who works in academia (though not an academic myself), I can tell you, that is not how it works with things like this. There should always be room to challenge any translation/version. Because there can't be growth and new study without that freedom - freedom the author is taking advantage of by not accepted the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible as "true".

[colorsparkle]

You make a very good point with this example. Misreading Judas does take fragments of biblical verses rather than the whole of the verse, to use as substantiation. It doesn't work when the whole of a verse is read (the way it should be). Great observation!
This is a perfect example of why Gnostic writings were not permitted to be included in the Bible. They don't align with the texts that DO align together. That alignment is a way of proof all by itself. When it comes to historic documentation, science and archeology likes to gather as many examples as possible of first hand accounts, verifiable, before comparing them with one another to again verify their authenticity.
Misreading Judas doesn't do that, it simply twists fragments of scripture and applies them then to the ideas that the author is trying to put over.

I definitely agree. If you put these back into context, it’s obvious that the author is just twisting the meaning to prove his point.

[eastandalchemy]

It's hard to defend any verse to anyone except for yourself. We base our interpretations and judgments based on our life experiences and what and who we choose to believe.

[Sahansdal]

In reading this book there were specific verses that the author identified that were inverted. Opposite of what I have learned, contradicting and attempting to put doubt in what they have taught me. Keeping all this in mind I will further analyze the verses the author provided and entertain and challenge his theory. Therefore, I am asking what verse in this book stands out the most for you and what about it do you know makes the most impact and influence you to stand by your belief. The following is an example but not the final determiner for me.

Using New King James Version, Mathew 26:39, The Prayer in the Garden,
He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed saying, “Oh My Father, if it is possible,
let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless not as I will, but as You will.”

Using the Kindle Version of Misreading Judas, Mathew 26:39, Page 35
“Let this cup pass from me.”

Ah, selective editing. That is the only way to find out what the real truth is! Cut and paste words to get what you want out of it.

I did not have enough biblical knowledge when I started reading this book to catch things like this. Thank you for pointing it out. I suspected it was happening, but wasn't sure.

This is the author. What are you saying? That because the parallels are not perfectly matched they have no relationship? That isn't how the inversion works. They are TELLS. they don't need to be exact. But key words are there. You think my analysis is difficult and convoluted, you should read Dr. Robert Eisenman. But you have to have a level of ability to comprehend this stuff, that apparently many lack. I'm sorry I was not able to convey the parallels adequately. Twenty-four tells is a lot. Word for word is obvious: "THE FLESH IS WEAK" and The Kiss. That's pretty obvious. But they are normally inverted in sense. The original kiss was from JAMES to Jesus, not Judas to Jesus. It was in both Apocalypses of James. That's pretty unusual. A MAN kissing A MAN. How many times does it appear in the Bible? ONCE, until the Gospels. David and his general Amasa, or whoever it was, I don't have the source in front of me. But there was a betrayal in the Old Testament that was borrowed as a theme TO HIDE the gnostic kiss OF SPIRIT. I guess I will never prevail on the Christian-suffused mainstream. Perhaps that is why Eisenman gets this and you don't. He is a JEW. They get it better. You have been duped. What can I say??? Read his books if you think not. He is far, far smarter and better trained than I.