Truth or Fable?

[Wyland]

The book does not portray an accurate picture of the purpose of Christ's mission to save mankind. It's selfish driven and with an agenda to do away with the divinity of Christ.

[Beatus]

You are the truth. As a person you have to just be. What would have changed about/inside you if this book is truth/lie? If you want to be a better listener/ employee/father/preacher/person and this book is helping then good. If its the opposite...you know what to do.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

The book does not portray an accurate picture of the purpose of Christ's mission to save mankind. It's selfish driven and with an agenda to do away with the divinity of Christ.

He did seem somewhat biased away from Christianity, admittedly. Thanks for your thoughts!

[Lisa A Rayburn]

What would have changed about/inside you if this book is truth/lie?

I did find it to be an interesting theory, but did it change me? No. I took it with a grain of salt from the beginning.

If its the opposite...you know what to do.

The first thought that popped into my head was "burn it?" but that was just my sassy brain being facetious. I think having an open mind is a wonderful thing, so reading about and considering alternate theories (as long as you don't just go jump on every single bandwagon) can be not just interesting but, yes, helpful. Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!

[dragonet07]

Well, now that you've had time to read the book, what do you think? Is the author on the right track? Was Judas simply seeking to accelerate the advancement of a mystical line of prophets? Or was he, indeed, the traitor the Bible portrays him as? What is it in or about the book that convinces you (or doesn't)?

Personally, I like considering alternate viewpoints. Although I did find the book somewhat difficult to understand and had to re-read several sections, the author seems to have done his homework. However, his research seems (to me) to be somewhat biased away from Christianity. Because of this, I'm reserving judgment. A more objective point of view would have done a lot better toward convincing me. How about you?

As a non-Christian, I like to read the Bible as a literary piece rather than as a religious text. From that perspective, I think that the author makes some interesting points through his close reading of the Gospel of Judas. However, he does not fully convince me that his reading is correct. There were multiple points that I felt were a bit of a leap because I could not follow his train of thought. I didn't necessarily feel that he was biased away from Christianity--it felt much more complicated than that--but I did feel that he was biased against biblical scholars. He treats his reading as the only possible reading and as though only he has figured out the "right" reading. He also acts as though the writers of the New Testament were purposefully being deceitful, and as a student of literary studies, that immediately drags down his argument for me. To assume an author meant to say something (also known as the intentional fallacy) and use it as part of your argument/conclusion is very poor form when studying any literary work, religious or not.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

To assume an author meant to say something (also known as the intentional fallacy) and use it as part of your argument/conclusion is very poor form when studying any literary work, religious or not.

That's my pet peeve about many literature classes from elementary all the way up to University level. "This is what Poe/Shakespeare/Thoreau/(insert literary figure) meant when (s)he wrote...." How do they know that's what they meant? No-one has ever had a conversation with these authors (no one alive today anyway) and been told what they actually meant. It's all supposition, yet it is taught as fact. This spills over into teachers doing the same thing with literary works that are more recent: The Giver, Wild, etc. Some of these authors have literally said "No, that's not what I meant by..." about some of the suppositions/conclusions that have been made but it's taught anyway because some scholar somewhere decided that was what they meant. Sorry for the rant. Pet peeve. Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!

[Kyoks]

I personally think christians have for a long time been believing what I should say half meaning of the action of Judas in the Bible. He didn't know what he was doing and on the other hand, this happened in the fulfillment of what Jesus Christ said in Mathew 26:21-23, They were all eating the Passover meal when Jesus said "Believe me when I say that one of you twelve here will hand me over to my enemies. The followers were very sad to hear this and each one of them said, " Lord, surely l am not the one!" Jesus answered, " one who has dipped his bread in the same bowl with me will be the one to hand me over." which was Judas.
But if Jesus Christ himself said to God that ,"forgive them for they don't know what they are doing." then we as christians should not pin the blame of Judas even if what he did was wrong.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

I personally think christians have for a long time been believing what I should say half meaning of the action of Judas in the Bible. He didn't know what he was doing and on the other hand, this happened in the fulfillment of what Jesus Christ said in Mathew 26:21-23, They were all eating the Passover meal when Jesus said "Believe me when I say that one of you twelve here will hand me over to my enemies. The followers were very sad to hear this and each one of them said, " Lord, surely l am not the one!" Jesus answered, " one who has dipped his bread in the same bowl with me will be the one to hand me over." which was Judas.
But if Jesus Christ himself said to God that ,"forgive them for they don't know what they are doing." then we as christians should not pin the blame of Judas even if what he did was wrong.

That's an interesting perspective, thank you for sharing it with us!

[Sahansdal]

I personally think christians have for a long time been believing what I should say half meaning of the action of Judas in the Bible. He didn't know what he was doing and on the other hand, this happened in the fulfillment of what Jesus Christ said in Mathew 26:21-23, They were all eating the Passover meal when Jesus said "Believe me when I say that one of you twelve here will hand me over to my enemies. The followers were very sad to hear this and each one of them said, " Lord, surely l am not the one!" Jesus answered, " one who has dipped his bread in the same bowl with me will be the one to hand me over." which was Judas.
But if Jesus Christ himself said to God that ,"forgive them for they don't know what they are doing." then we as christians should not pin the blame of Judas even if what he did was wrong.

That's an interesting perspective, thank you for sharing it with us!

But it was not Jesus who said it. It was James. Hegesippus. Page 60, The History of the Church by Eusebius.

There is so much ignored by scholars it isn't funny. It's truly tragic on an epic scale. Read the works of Dr. Robert Eisenman.

[Sahansdal]

I believe that Judas was the betrayer as the Bible says he was. This book didn’t change my mind at all. I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. The “gospel of Judas” has so much missing from it, I don’t know how the author thinks this can be “proof” of Judas becoming the next master after Jesus.

I didn't say that it was, but that the Apocalypse of James was. You have to consider the parallels and how they came to be that way. I went into minute detail about how one can see the process of one becoming the other, proving the Bible, as usual, is not original or historical.

[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.

[Sahansdal]

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.

Very funny. But you miss the point. Characters cover each other as needed by the author. You are assuming that this is a straight historical account. It isn't. It is a literary creation, a heroic biography in the Greco-Roman model. Stuff is added as needed all over.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

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!

[Abacus]

I think it's very easy to make a mistake in translation, and for that mistake to be built on and built on until the underlying truth has been changed. I have an open mind on this subject and would like to hear a discussion by experts on both sides.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

I think it's very easy to make a mistake in translation, and for that mistake to be built on and built on until the underlying truth has been changed. I have an open mind on this subject and would like to hear a discussion by experts on both sides.

I agree completely, especially if what you have is a translation of a translation of a translation and so on. Thanks so much for stopping by and commenting!