Truth or Fable?

Use this forum to discuss the May 2019 Book of the month, "Misreading Judas" by Robert Wahler
Forum rules
NOTICE: The author of this book was invited to participate in the discussion in this forum about his book. You should expect that the author is reading and may reply to posts made in this forum.

While the forums typically have a rule against authors/publishers talking about their own book on the forums at all as a way to prevent spam, an author discussing their own book in the dedicated discussion forum about that book is an exception and is allowed, including posting would-be self-promotional links to his book or related material insofar as is relevant to the discussion.

However, other forum rules and standards, such as those requiring upmost civility and politeness, are of course still in effect.
jlrinc
Posts: 52
Joined: 08 Apr 2019, 03:50
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 11
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-jlrinc.html
Latest Review: Burn Zones by Jorge P. Newbery
Reading Device: 1400697484

Re: Truth or Fable?

Post by jlrinc »

Sahansdal wrote: 25 Jul 2019, 14:49
jlrinc wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 23:43
Sahansdal wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 09:58

Which 'facts' could you possibly mean? The New Testament is literature, not history.
Here is an interesting fact. The word for bears me in the phrase you will sacrifice the one who bears me is the same word used in homer for the horses who bear Achilles, This word has also been translated as the one who clothes me.. What all this means is is that Jesus says that Judas will offer for sacrifice the human body that bears the christ. This is gnostic idea about Christ it occurs over and over again in the nag hammadi texts. The early church fathers condemn it as heresy time and again in their heresologies. The epistle of john even says that those who believe it are antichrists. Any cursory study of gnosticism will show this. This is the only interpretation that anyone who has an expertise in gnosticism believes. This is how it has been translated by every expert in coptic who has translated it. How does Judas Bear Jesus in the dialogue? Why doesnt Jesus just say you will sacrifice yourself? Can the author point to a single other gnostic text where the word bear is used in this way,Can the author point to a single time when the word bear is used this way in english, in greek the word means carry in english it means carry , in what sense does judas carry Jesus? If Judas was James why are the two together in the gospel of John? Why is James not disguised as Judas in any other gnostic book? In the phrase the unspoken word the author says it can only be undertsood as mysticism. Does he know that the phrase originates with Plotinus a philosopher in middle platonism, the very foundation fo western rationalism? Does the author know that Eisenmann doesnt quote a single modern scholar in the entire 1000+ pages of his book on James? Why does the author of this book ignore the scholarship of every prominent scholar who has looked at the text and yet the author reads neither coptic or greek himself? I actually applaud your scepticism and your independent inquiry but you have to be much more careful in building your arguments. You have hunch that something isnt right in the orthodox teachings of Christianity and you are doubtless correct but you need to start from the ground and go up. When you write you need to prove yourself wrong , this means examining the work of scholars who know more than you and test your ideas against theirs. You need to be ruthless against your own intuitions. In your book you dismiss every expert in the field. If you find 3 scholars who disagree with your interpretation you need to find three others who support it. You need to challenge your own ideas with that kind of ferocity and if you do this honestly and with integrity what is still standing will stand for a very long time. Another good option for you (and I think you have a lot of potential to be a really good writer) is to write about what your really trying to say. I think you are using Judas as a proxy to for your own ideas, forget Judas forget James just tell us your ideas. I bet you have a lot to say about spirituality that nobody can refute. That would be an awesome book. gnosticism is an incredibly complex set of ideas, is the Gospel of Judas influenced by the ideas of the Carpocrations, Velencius, Marcion? How does Barbelos, the demiurge, the autogenes differ in Judas than in other works? Does it reflect earlier gnostic ideas or are they more fully evolved? These are questions any author on G. Judas should be able to answer. Those are a lot of work to find out. If you want to be an expert then it requires a lot of work. But you have expertise in anthoer field that you are not utilising, work that you have put into study with your teacher and that you probably are a real expert in. If gnosticism is what you want to work in you ahve to get caught up and I have no doubt you can but it will be very very hard. You are probably right now an expert in the field that you have studied write that book! I have no doubt that book will be a classic! Best wishes sincerely
It's Coptic for whatever the Greek original word was, and it doesn't refer to Christ. Read the NHC Apocalypse of Peter for example, section about Paul, the anti-nomian worker of death. "Carry" is a good translation. 'Judas' carries or contains the inner Man, Jesus. Gnostics hated sacrifice of others. 'Man' refers to the gnostic lower self, the "twelve elements" of Judas in gJudas 36.1-3 which are replaced by "someone else" -- the Master, Christ. Judas asked the question, "What will those baptized IN YOUR NAME do?" The Name is Nam or Shabd of the Sikhs, and mystic Satsangis like me. 'Name' of the Lord is Word, the Apophasis Logos. 'Name' isn't 'Jesus.' It has been incarnating since at least Seth (Genesis 4:26). The Master initiates and he waits for the disciple to progress to the point where he "sacrifices the man [the disciple's self] who bears me [the Master]." This is the answer from Jesus. There is no answer to the question of Judas at the end of page 55 until page 56 and this line spoken by Jesus. Judas will exceed the others and become one with the Master. The ode to the conqueror immediately follows, "Your horn has been raised, your wrath has been kindled [against himself,per Apoc. James 1], your star has ascended [per A. DeConick], and your heart has grown strong." THAT is Gnosticism. Judas overcomes himself. Nowhere in this story is Jesus sacrificed.

I dismiss all the experts because they are all wrong, even Eisenman on this. I tried to enlighten him. (Good luck.) I have seen two Masters (John 6:40). I know that they are limited to their time only (John 9:4-5 and 14:6-7). Don't make the mistake of trying to extract one from his own generation. He will not help you. Masters must be living concurrently with the disciple to initiate into Word.

I think 'Jesus' is simply a reference to any Master's God-self. Whatever you call It, or Him/Her, the Son is not Jesus Christ. John 3:16 in the past tense proves the Son of God is not Jesus Christ, but the Holy Spirit. The proto-orthodox Church of the first several centuries did a very bad thing. They played up this "sacrifice" theme into a false sacrifice of the Master. because it allowed the Pauline Church to rid itself of James, the real savior, in favor of a one-size-fits-all martyred savior, Jesus Christ. Doesn't Judas mean Jew, and Jesus mean savior? This should be a hint it was not intended to be history, but is literature. I think all the names have this double meaning in the Gospels. I am no expert on the NT, but I do know mystic theology. I see it overwritten on every page of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They had other aims for what they wrote.

The only one more rejected than Eisenman is me. Doesn't matter. He is right, and I am right.
I'm tough but I'm rooting for you. You have a real chance, what you see overwritten in the new testament is what is important. I believe you know that. I dont doubt that you are an expert in that. In fact you are arguing with me about academic matters. This stuff is so unimportant compared to what you probably know that I dont really understand you. This is all school stuff. If you like sitting in a library reading books you can master it but to what end? The important stuff isnt found in libraries (trust me libraries are very lonely places, I've spent too much time in them) and thats where you can be important.. Are you familiar with Chugyam Trungpa? Brilliant You wont find anyone who will argue with him not Erhman or Carrier. Thats what we need more of.
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal »

jlrinc wrote: 25 Jul 2019, 20:41
Sahansdal wrote: 25 Jul 2019, 14:49
jlrinc wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 23:43
Here is an interesting fact. The word for bears me in the phrase you will sacrifice the one who bears me is the same word used in homer for the horses who bear Achilles, This word has also been translated as the one who clothes me.. What all this means is is that Jesus says that Judas will offer for sacrifice the human body that bears the christ. This is gnostic idea about Christ it occurs over and over again in the nag hammadi texts. The early church fathers condemn it as heresy time and again in their heresologies. The epistle of john even says that those who believe it are antichrists. Any cursory study of gnosticism will show this. This is the only interpretation that anyone who has an expertise in gnosticism believes. This is how it has been translated by every expert in coptic who has translated it. How does Judas Bear Jesus in the dialogue? Why doesnt Jesus just say you will sacrifice yourself? Can the author point to a single other gnostic text where the word bear is used in this way,Can the author point to a single time when the word bear is used this way in english, in greek the word means carry in english it means carry , in what sense does judas carry Jesus? If Judas was James why are the two together in the gospel of John? Why is James not disguised as Judas in any other gnostic book? In the phrase the unspoken word the author says it can only be undertsood as mysticism. Does he know that the phrase originates with Plotinus a philosopher in middle platonism, the very foundation fo western rationalism? Does the author know that Eisenmann doesnt quote a single modern scholar in the entire 1000+ pages of his book on James? Why does the author of this book ignore the scholarship of every prominent scholar who has looked at the text and yet the author reads neither coptic or greek himself? I actually applaud your scepticism and your independent inquiry but you have to be much more careful in building your arguments. You have hunch that something isnt right in the orthodox teachings of Christianity and you are doubtless correct but you need to start from the ground and go up. When you write you need to prove yourself wrong , this means examining the work of scholars who know more than you and test your ideas against theirs. You need to be ruthless against your own intuitions. In your book you dismiss every expert in the field. If you find 3 scholars who disagree with your interpretation you need to find three others who support it. You need to challenge your own ideas with that kind of ferocity and if you do this honestly and with integrity what is still standing will stand for a very long time. Another good option for you (and I think you have a lot of potential to be a really good writer) is to write about what your really trying to say. I think you are using Judas as a proxy to for your own ideas, forget Judas forget James just tell us your ideas. I bet you have a lot to say about spirituality that nobody can refute. That would be an awesome book. gnosticism is an incredibly complex set of ideas, is the Gospel of Judas influenced by the ideas of the Carpocrations, Velencius, Marcion? How does Barbelos, the demiurge, the autogenes differ in Judas than in other works? Does it reflect earlier gnostic ideas or are they more fully evolved? These are questions any author on G. Judas should be able to answer. Those are a lot of work to find out. If you want to be an expert then it requires a lot of work. But you have expertise in anthoer field that you are not utilising, work that you have put into study with your teacher and that you probably are a real expert in. If gnosticism is what you want to work in you ahve to get caught up and I have no doubt you can but it will be very very hard. You are probably right now an expert in the field that you have studied write that book! I have no doubt that book will be a classic! Best wishes sincerely
It's Coptic for whatever the Greek original word was, and it doesn't refer to Christ. Read the NHC Apocalypse of Peter for example, section about Paul, the anti-nomian worker of death. "Carry" is a good translation. 'Judas' carries or contains the inner Man, Jesus. Gnostics hated sacrifice of others. 'Man' refers to the gnostic lower self, the "twelve elements" of Judas in gJudas 36.1-3 which are replaced by "someone else" -- the Master, Christ. Judas asked the question, "What will those baptized IN YOUR NAME do?" The Name is Nam or Shabd of the Sikhs, and mystic Satsangis like me. 'Name' of the Lord is Word, the Apophasis Logos. 'Name' isn't 'Jesus.' It has been incarnating since at least Seth (Genesis 4:26). The Master initiates and he waits for the disciple to progress to the point where he "sacrifices the man [the disciple's self] who bears me [the Master]." This is the answer from Jesus. There is no answer to the question of Judas at the end of page 55 until page 56 and this line spoken by Jesus. Judas will exceed the others and become one with the Master. The ode to the conqueror immediately follows, "Your horn has been raised, your wrath has been kindled [against himself,per Apoc. James 1], your star has ascended [per A. DeConick], and your heart has grown strong." THAT is Gnosticism. Judas overcomes himself. Nowhere in this story is Jesus sacrificed.

I dismiss all the experts because they are all wrong, even Eisenman on this. I tried to enlighten him. (Good luck.) I have seen two Masters (John 6:40). I know that they are limited to their time only (John 9:4-5 and 14:6-7). Don't make the mistake of trying to extract one from his own generation. He will not help you. Masters must be living concurrently with the disciple to initiate into Word.

I think 'Jesus' is simply a reference to any Master's God-self. Whatever you call It, or Him/Her, the Son is not Jesus Christ. John 3:16 in the past tense proves the Son of God is not Jesus Christ, but the Holy Spirit. The proto-orthodox Church of the first several centuries did a very bad thing. They played up this "sacrifice" theme into a false sacrifice of the Master. because it allowed the Pauline Church to rid itself of James, the real savior, in favor of a one-size-fits-all martyred savior, Jesus Christ. Doesn't Judas mean Jew, and Jesus mean savior? This should be a hint it was not intended to be history, but is literature. I think all the names have this double meaning in the Gospels. I am no expert on the NT, but I do know mystic theology. I see it overwritten on every page of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They had other aims for what they wrote.

The only one more rejected than Eisenman is me. Doesn't matter. He is right, and I am right.
I'm tough but I'm rooting for you. You have a real chance, what you see overwritten in the new testament is what is important. I believe you know that. I dont doubt that you are an expert in that. In fact you are arguing with me about academic matters. This stuff is so unimportant compared to what you probably know that I dont really understand you. This is all school stuff. If you like sitting in a library reading books you can master it but to what end? The important stuff isnt found in libraries (trust me libraries are very lonely places, I've spent too much time in them) and thats where you can be important.. Are you familiar with Chugyam Trungpa? Brilliant You wont find anyone who will argue with him not Erhman or Carrier. Thats what we need more of.
I will see the Master this Tuesday. All I need. www.Petalumaprogram.org You can come. Don't be late, though.
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal »

jlrinc wrote: 25 Jul 2019, 20:25
Sahansdal wrote: 25 Jul 2019, 14:49
jlrinc wrote: 24 Jul 2019, 23:43
Here is an interesting fact. The word for bears me in the phrase you will sacrifice the one who bears me is the same word used in homer for the horses who bear Achilles, This word has also been translated as the one who clothes me.. What all this means is is that Jesus says that Judas will offer for sacrifice the human body that bears the christ. This is gnostic idea about Christ it occurs over and over again in the nag hammadi texts. The early church fathers condemn it as heresy time and again in their heresologies. The epistle of john even says that those who believe it are antichrists. Any cursory study of gnosticism will show this. This is the only interpretation that anyone who has an expertise in gnosticism believes. This is how it has been translated by every expert in coptic who has translated it. How does Judas Bear Jesus in the dialogue? Why doesnt Jesus just say you will sacrifice yourself? Can the author point to a single other gnostic text where the word bear is used in this way,Can the author point to a single time when the word bear is used this way in english, in greek the word means carry in english it means carry , in what sense does judas carry Jesus? If Judas was James why are the two together in the gospel of John? Why is James not disguised as Judas in any other gnostic book? In the phrase the unspoken word the author says it can only be undertsood as mysticism. Does he know that the phrase originates with Plotinus a philosopher in middle platonism, the very foundation fo western rationalism? Does the author know that Eisenmann doesnt quote a single modern scholar in the entire 1000+ pages of his book on James? Why does the author of this book ignore the scholarship of every prominent scholar who has looked at the text and yet the author reads neither coptic or greek himself? I actually applaud your scepticism and your independent inquiry but you have to be much more careful in building your arguments. You have hunch that something isnt right in the orthodox teachings of Christianity and you are doubtless correct but you need to start from the ground and go up. When you write you need to prove yourself wrong , this means examining the work of scholars who know more than you and test your ideas against theirs. You need to be ruthless against your own intuitions. In your book you dismiss every expert in the field. If you find 3 scholars who disagree with your interpretation you need to find three others who support it. You need to challenge your own ideas with that kind of ferocity and if you do this honestly and with integrity what is still standing will stand for a very long time. Another good option for you (and I think you have a lot of potential to be a really good writer) is to write about what your really trying to say. I think you are using Judas as a proxy to for your own ideas, forget Judas forget James just tell us your ideas. I bet you have a lot to say about spirituality that nobody can refute. That would be an awesome book. gnosticism is an incredibly complex set of ideas, is the Gospel of Judas influenced by the ideas of the Carpocrations, Velencius, Marcion? How does Barbelos, the demiurge, the autogenes differ in Judas than in other works? Does it reflect earlier gnostic ideas or are they more fully evolved? These are questions any author on G. Judas should be able to answer. Those are a lot of work to find out. If you want to be an expert then it requires a lot of work. But you have expertise in anthoer field that you are not utilising, work that you have put into study with your teacher and that you probably are a real expert in. If gnosticism is what you want to work in you ahve to get caught up and I have no doubt you can but it will be very very hard. You are probably right now an expert in the field that you have studied write that book! I have no doubt that book will be a classic! Best wishes sincerely
It's Coptic for whatever the Greek original word was, and it doesn't refer to Christ. Read the NHC Apocalypse of Peter for example, section about Paul, the anti-nomian worker of death. "Carry" is a good translation. 'Judas' carries or contains the inner Man, Jesus. Gnostics hated sacrifice of others. 'Man' refers to the gnostic lower self, the "twelve elements" of Judas in gJudas 36.1-3 which are replaced by "someone else" -- the Master, Christ. Judas asked the question, "What will those baptized IN YOUR NAME do?" The Name is Nam or Shabd of the Sikhs, and mystic Satsangis like me. 'Name' of the Lord is Word, the Apophasis Logos. 'Name' isn't 'Jesus.' It has been incarnating since at least Seth (Genesis 4:26). The Master initiates and he waits for the disciple to progress to the point where he "sacrifices the man [the disciple's self] who bears me [the Master]." This is the answer from Jesus. There is no answer to the question of Judas at the end of page 55 until page 56 and this line spoken by Jesus. Judas will exceed the others and become one with the Master. The ode to the conqueror immediately follows, "Your horn has been raised, your wrath has been kindled [against himself,per Apoc. James 1], your star has ascended [per A. DeConick], and your heart has grown strong." THAT is Gnosticism. Judas overcomes himself. Nowhere in this story is Jesus sacrificed.

I dismiss all the experts because they are all wrong, even Eisenman on this. I tried to enlighten him. (Good luck.) I have seen two Masters (John 6:40). I know that they are limited to their time only (John 9:4-5 and 14:6-7). Don't make the mistake of trying to extract one from his own generation. He will not help you. Masters must be living concurrently with the disciple to initiate into Word.

I think 'Jesus' is simply a reference to any Master's God-self. Whatever you call It, or Him/Her, the Son is not Jesus Christ. John 3:16 in the past tense proves the Son of God is not Jesus Christ, but the Holy Spirit. The proto-orthodox Church of the first several centuries did a very bad thing. They played up this "sacrifice" theme into a false sacrifice of the Master. because it allowed the Pauline Church to rid itself of James, the real savior, in favor of a one-size-fits-all martyred savior, Jesus Christ. Doesn't Judas mean Jew, and Jesus mean savior? This should be a hint it was not intended to be history, but is literature. I think all the names have this double meaning in the Gospels. I am no expert on the NT, but I do know mystic theology. I see it overwritten on every page of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They had other aims for what they wrote.

The only one more rejected than Eisenman is me. Doesn't matter. He is right, and I am right.
You ignore the whole nag hammadi library which speaks only about Jesus christ the savior. You ignore completely the central doctrine of all of gnosticism. You say gnostics hated sacrifice of others. The gnostics believed that the god who created this world was evil and jesus was sacrificed to him. But Christ outsmarted this evil god because it was only the flesh that clothed the christ that was sacrificed. This is what all ancient gnosticism teaches. Christ was sacrificed because of the evil God the demiurge. But the demiurge was fooled because christ had already left the body when he was crucified. This is in virtually every gnostic text that deals with the crucifixion of christ and you just ignore what all of the texts say. This isnt even in question. read any gnostic account of the crucifixion and you will see christ laughing at the people who think he has died when only the one who bore him died. This is basic gnosticism. Its not even a question among peple who have looked into it seriously. the son is not jesus christ in gnosticism because god is evil in gnostic doctrine Jesus comes from another realm. Again for anyone who knows this isnt even a question it is a definitional account of gnosticism. I can say that pontius pilate was the savior and that everyone but me is wrong. It has no meaning. more imortantly it is not edifying. its an assumption you made without doing the work. I read Eisenmanns book, I dont agree with a lot of it but he has the worlds ear because he has done the work to back up his claims. The guy has read everything relevant in the original languages. Think Carrier is completely deluded by his own confirmation bias but the guy has done his work. here is my challenge to you. If I were you I'd want to know if I were right. I'd go back and page by page retraanslate the nag hammadi library from coptic while at the same time following along with a relevant commentary then translate g. Judas. If you do this then youve done the work. Its time consuming but its not really as hard as it sounds. Its one thing to say I;m right but its another thing to say I'm not wrong. saying I'm right is the starting point you dont finish till youve tried to prove yourself wrong and failed and that is a long hard slog, its psychologically risky but that is what makes it worthwhile. You may not be interested but I can tell you how to get started coptic is just the egyptian language using the greek alphabet. Its a simple language and the nag hammadi is only a few hundred pages long you could be finished translating in three years without driving yourself crazy doing it. but until you challenge yourself like that you dont know you are guessing.
I've read the entire NH Library, and all the Scrolls from Qumran. One thing I don't need to do is guess. I don't need to know Coptic or Greek. I understand from the available translations, which are really pretty good, except for the translators lack of mystic knowledge. I understand the texts, all of them, including the Bible, better than any scholar ever will because of one thing. I know the Masters.

Eisenman is not widely accepted. He has four main books. What makes you say he has the world's ear? I wish he did. He is rejected nearly everywhere Christians are. Campuses like him, but few colleagues. He is bitter. I sat with him at lunch. He is bitter about how he has been treated. It's a shame. About the only thing he has ever gotten wrong is about Judas. His work is near perfect. I was stunned. I'm not guessing. When you learn from a real Master, it all becomes clear, and in a hurry. All else is unimportant.
User avatar
SavannaEGoth
Posts: 185
Joined: 28 Mar 2019, 12:25
Favorite Book: Warriors
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 34
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-savannaegoth.html
Latest Review: Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler

Post by SavannaEGoth »

Just wanted to interject here because it seems the debate has picked up yet again. I get that these texts and many others dating back from early C.E. are precious or sacred to a lot of people. There's nothing wrong with that and I can respect someone for having faith in a religion. However, it admittedly rubs me the wrong way whenever I see someone insisting that their beliefs are the correct ones above all else. Every religion preaches this, and most frown upon and belittle the beliefs of other organizations and cults.

Frankly, none of us know for sure what happened because we weren't there. The men who wrote the different books of the bible or penned scrolls and other relgious texts for other religions could have added just about whatever they wanted to embelish their stories or impose their own ideas. Historically and spiritually speaking, none of us know what truly happened in certain situations and we never will. Having faith in something is absolutely fine, but I cannot put stock in the words of anyone claiming that their beliefs are absolutely the right ones and are so because some other guy told them so. It doesn't matter if that person is a "Master" or a scholar or your grandmother. None of them were alive then so their opinions hold just as much value as anyone else's.

I'm sure this is going to be polarizing to some of the people above, and almost certainly below, but I hope what I've said is at least considered.
"I'm going to die whatever you do, but I'm not afraid."
- Yellowfang Warriors: Rising Storm
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal »

SavannaEGoth wrote: 26 Jul 2019, 02:22 Just wanted to interject here because it seems the debate has picked up yet again. I get that these texts and many others dating back from early C.E. are precious or sacred to a lot of people. There's nothing wrong with that and I can respect someone for having faith in a religion. However, it admittedly rubs me the wrong way whenever I see someone insisting that their beliefs are the correct ones above all else. Every religion preaches this, and most frown upon and belittle the beliefs of other organizations and cults.

Frankly, none of us know for sure what happened because we weren't there. The men who wrote the different books of the bible or penned scrolls and other relgious texts for other religions could have added just about whatever they wanted to embelish their stories or impose their own ideas. Historically and spiritually speaking, none of us know what truly happened in certain situations and we never will. Having faith in something is absolutely fine, but I cannot put stock in the words of anyone claiming that their beliefs are absolutely the right ones and are so because some other guy told them so. It doesn't matter if that person is a "Master" or a scholar or your grandmother. None of them were alive then so their opinions hold just as much value as anyone else's.

I'm sure this is going to be polarizing to some of the people above, and almost certainly below, but I hope what I've said is at least considered.
True Masters, wherever and whenever they show up, are not like you and I. They are fully realized and all teach the same Way to realization. It has always been so, and always will be so. You just have to identify them. They teach how to do that TOO. You do not need my opinion. There are eternally valid truths in the Teachings of the Masters, and what any one of the rest of us thinks about it matters not. One thing they all do is teach the Path of the Sound, or Word (NT), or Name of the Lord (OT), or Nam, or Shabd (Sant Mat), or Messenger (Qur'an), or Apophasis Logos, as the current discussion's writers called it (the Gnostics). This is all one and the same teaching. There is no other. The NT Gospels are the only outlier. They are trying to cover this UP. If you want to avoid rebirth (we all die), you will need to look for a true living Master and do what he says (Matt. 7:21, John 6:40). Jesus wasn't a Master, since he is unknown to history. James was. HE was the Master, and likely responsible for the red-letter quotes we all know and love. I have studied this for years. One reason the world is such a mess and getting worse under Trump is because of ignorance about spirituality. If I speak boldly, I'm sorry. I don't care if people find certitude offensive. Take it or leave it. I get nothing for doing this, actually t costs me. I do it because I am tired of the nonsense I hear everywhere and what that is doing to us all.

Many Masters' writings, from a number of traditions, are represented HERE > www.Scienceofthesoul.org (www.rssb.org is the admin website of the current Master) Here is this week's North American appearance of the current Master, Baba Ji Gurinder Singh: www.Petalumaprogram.org and www.Fayettevilleprogram.org
jlrinc
Posts: 52
Joined: 08 Apr 2019, 03:50
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 11
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-jlrinc.html
Latest Review: Burn Zones by Jorge P. Newbery
Reading Device: 1400697484

Post by jlrinc »

Sahansdal wrote: 25 Jul 2019, 21:29
jlrinc wrote: 25 Jul 2019, 20:25
Sahansdal wrote: 25 Jul 2019, 14:49

It's Coptic for whatever the Greek original word was, and it doesn't refer to Christ. Read the NHC Apocalypse of Peter for example, section about Paul, the anti-nomian worker of death. "Carry" is a good translation. 'Judas' carries or contains the inner Man, Jesus. Gnostics hated sacrifice of others. 'Man' refers to the gnostic lower self, the "twelve elements" of Judas in gJudas 36.1-3 which are replaced by "someone else" -- the Master, Christ. Judas asked the question, "What will those baptized IN YOUR NAME do?" The Name is Nam or Shabd of the Sikhs, and mystic Satsangis like me. 'Name' of the Lord is Word, the Apophasis Logos. 'Name' isn't 'Jesus.' It has been incarnating since at least Seth (Genesis 4:26). The Master initiates and he waits for the disciple to progress to the point where he "sacrifices the man [the disciple's self] who bears me [the Master]." This is the answer from Jesus. There is no answer to the question of Judas at the end of page 55 until page 56 and this line spoken by Jesus. Judas will exceed the others and become one with the Master. The ode to the conqueror immediately follows, "Your horn has been raised, your wrath has been kindled [against himself,per Apoc. James 1], your star has ascended [per A. DeConick], and your heart has grown strong." THAT is Gnosticism. Judas overcomes himself. Nowhere in this story is Jesus sacrificed.

I dismiss all the experts because they are all wrong, even Eisenman on this. I tried to enlighten him. (Good luck.) I have seen two Masters (John 6:40). I know that they are limited to their time only (John 9:4-5 and 14:6-7). Don't make the mistake of trying to extract one from his own generation. He will not help you. Masters must be living concurrently with the disciple to initiate into Word.

I think 'Jesus' is simply a reference to any Master's God-self. Whatever you call It, or Him/Her, the Son is not Jesus Christ. John 3:16 in the past tense proves the Son of God is not Jesus Christ, but the Holy Spirit. The proto-orthodox Church of the first several centuries did a very bad thing. They played up this "sacrifice" theme into a false sacrifice of the Master. because it allowed the Pauline Church to rid itself of James, the real savior, in favor of a one-size-fits-all martyred savior, Jesus Christ. Doesn't Judas mean Jew, and Jesus mean savior? This should be a hint it was not intended to be history, but is literature. I think all the names have this double meaning in the Gospels. I am no expert on the NT, but I do know mystic theology. I see it overwritten on every page of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They had other aims for what they wrote.

The only one more rejected than Eisenman is me. Doesn't matter. He is right, and I am right.
You ignore the whole nag hammadi library which speaks only about Jesus christ the savior. You ignore completely the central doctrine of all of gnosticism. You say gnostics hated sacrifice of others. The gnostics believed that the god who created this world was evil and jesus was sacrificed to him. But Christ outsmarted this evil god because it was only the flesh that clothed the christ that was sacrificed. This is what all ancient gnosticism teaches. Christ was sacrificed because of the evil God the demiurge. But the demiurge was fooled because christ had already left the body when he was crucified. This is in virtually every gnostic text that deals with the crucifixion of christ and you just ignore what all of the texts say. This isnt even in question. read any gnostic account of the crucifixion and you will see christ laughing at the people who think he has died when only the one who bore him died. This is basic gnosticism. Its not even a question among peple who have looked into it seriously. the son is not jesus christ in gnosticism because god is evil in gnostic doctrine Jesus comes from another realm. Again for anyone who knows this isnt even a question it is a definitional account of gnosticism. I can say that pontius pilate was the savior and that everyone but me is wrong. It has no meaning. more imortantly it is not edifying. its an assumption you made without doing the work. I read Eisenmanns book, I dont agree with a lot of it but he has the worlds ear because he has done the work to back up his claims. The guy has read everything relevant in the original languages. Think Carrier is completely deluded by his own confirmation bias but the guy has done his work. here is my challenge to you. If I were you I'd want to know if I were right. I'd go back and page by page retraanslate the nag hammadi library from coptic while at the same time following along with a relevant commentary then translate g. Judas. If you do this then youve done the work. Its time consuming but its not really as hard as it sounds. Its one thing to say I;m right but its another thing to say I'm not wrong. saying I'm right is the starting point you dont finish till youve tried to prove yourself wrong and failed and that is a long hard slog, its psychologically risky but that is what makes it worthwhile. You may not be interested but I can tell you how to get started coptic is just the egyptian language using the greek alphabet. Its a simple language and the nag hammadi is only a few hundred pages long you could be finished translating in three years without driving yourself crazy doing it. but until you challenge yourself like that you dont know you are guessing.
I've read the entire NH Library, and all the Scrolls from Qumran. One thing I don't need to do is guess. I don't need to know Coptic or Greek. I understand from the available translations, which are really pretty good, except for the translators lack of mystic knowledge. I understand the texts, all of them, including the Bible, better than any scholar ever will because of one thing. I know the Masters.

Eisenman is not widely accepted. He has four main books. What makes you say he has the world's ear? I wish he did. He is rejected nearly everywhere Christians are. Campuses like him, but few colleagues. He is bitter. I sat with him at lunch. He is bitter about how he has been treated. It's a shame. About the only thing he has ever gotten wrong is about Judas. His work is near perfect. I was stunned. I'm not guessing. When you learn from a real Master, it all becomes clear, and in a hurry. All else is unimportant.
Its so remarkably easy that in itself would make me question. If I thought that the decades of hard work the everybody else purt in was just wasted and I had the right answer because I thought I did I would question myself. All these scholars that you are blowing off they are the steel that sharpens you. Eisenmann is a legend. HIs book on James is a classic. Few colleagues believe him because he ignores them. He treats them like they are unimportant and they return the favor. Niether he nor you have any respect for the work that others have spent their lives dedicated to. the only thing that matters is work. Anyone can be handed the secrets of the universe by a master but very few can go sit in a library five hours a day actually learning. In the end that is why they get paid to discuss gnosticism. because of the hundreds and thousands of hours they spent researching. No master can teach you how to read coptic, thats only done with work.
jlrinc
Posts: 52
Joined: 08 Apr 2019, 03:50
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 11
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-jlrinc.html
Latest Review: Burn Zones by Jorge P. Newbery
Reading Device: 1400697484

Post by jlrinc »

So let me see if I have your meaning. Jesus is telling Judas that he will have to sacrifice himself because he carries the master inside him? But Jesus doesn't exist he is really James telling Judas who doesn't really exist and who is also really James that he will have to sacrifice himself because he carries the master who is also really James? and so really James is telling James that he has to sacrifice himself because he is carrying James within him? Wait who is carrying James? Who is Judas talking to? Who was this gospel written for ? all those places where Judas asks Jesus a question is really just James talking to himself? nobody was confused by any of this then? You have to admit this might seem to some people a little hard to follow.
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal »

jlrinc wrote: 26 Jul 2019, 13:38
Sahansdal wrote: 25 Jul 2019, 21:29
jlrinc wrote: 25 Jul 2019, 20:25
You ignore the whole nag hammadi library which speaks only about Jesus christ the savior. You ignore completely the central doctrine of all of gnosticism. You say gnostics hated sacrifice of others. The gnostics believed that the god who created this world was evil and jesus was sacrificed to him. But Christ outsmarted this evil god because it was only the flesh that clothed the christ that was sacrificed. This is what all ancient gnosticism teaches. Christ was sacrificed because of the evil God the demiurge. But the demiurge was fooled because christ had already left the body when he was crucified. This is in virtually every gnostic text that deals with the crucifixion of christ and you just ignore what all of the texts say. This isnt even in question. read any gnostic account of the crucifixion and you will see christ laughing at the people who think he has died when only the one who bore him died. This is basic gnosticism. Its not even a question among peple who have looked into it seriously. the son is not jesus christ in gnosticism because god is evil in gnostic doctrine Jesus comes from another realm. Again for anyone who knows this isnt even a question it is a definitional account of gnosticism. I can say that pontius pilate was the savior and that everyone but me is wrong. It has no meaning. more imortantly it is not edifying. its an assumption you made without doing the work. I read Eisenmanns book, I dont agree with a lot of it but he has the worlds ear because he has done the work to back up his claims. The guy has read everything relevant in the original languages. Think Carrier is completely deluded by his own confirmation bias but the guy has done his work. here is my challenge to you. If I were you I'd want to know if I were right. I'd go back and page by page retraanslate the nag hammadi library from coptic while at the same time following along with a relevant commentary then translate g. Judas. If you do this then youve done the work. Its time consuming but its not really as hard as it sounds. Its one thing to say I;m right but its another thing to say I'm not wrong. saying I'm right is the starting point you dont finish till youve tried to prove yourself wrong and failed and that is a long hard slog, its psychologically risky but that is what makes it worthwhile. You may not be interested but I can tell you how to get started coptic is just the egyptian language using the greek alphabet. Its a simple language and the nag hammadi is only a few hundred pages long you could be finished translating in three years without driving yourself crazy doing it. but until you challenge yourself like that you dont know you are guessing.
I've read the entire NH Library, and all the Scrolls from Qumran. One thing I don't need to do is guess. I don't need to know Coptic or Greek. I understand from the available translations, which are really pretty good, except for the translators lack of mystic knowledge. I understand the texts, all of them, including the Bible, better than any scholar ever will because of one thing. I know the Masters.

Eisenman is not widely accepted. He has four main books. What makes you say he has the world's ear? I wish he did. He is rejected nearly everywhere Christians are. Campuses like him, but few colleagues. He is bitter. I sat with him at lunch. He is bitter about how he has been treated. It's a shame. About the only thing he has ever gotten wrong is about Judas. His work is near perfect. I was stunned. I'm not guessing. When you learn from a real Master, it all becomes clear, and in a hurry. All else is unimportant.
Its so remarkably easy that in itself would make me question. If I thought that the decades of hard work the everybody else purt in was just wasted and I had the right answer because I thought I did I would question myself. All these scholars that you are blowing off they are the steel that sharpens you. Eisenmann is a legend. HIs book on James is a classic. Few colleagues believe him because he ignores them. He treats them like they are unimportant and they return the favor. Niether he nor you have any respect for the work that others have spent their lives dedicated to. the only thing that matters is work. Anyone can be handed the secrets of the universe by a master but very few can go sit in a library five hours a day actually learning. In the end that is why they get paid to discuss gnosticism. because of the hundreds and thousands of hours they spent researching. No master can teach you how to read coptic, thats only done with work.
I don't assume. I know, because of what I learned from the Masters. I'm smart, but not that smart. Eisenman is smart. REALLY smart. I read him just to learn how a great mind works. Even if you don't care about religion, his work is important to read.

The only thing that matters is aligning with the Real. Work is over rated. I'm so sick of pompous scholars who think that they know more than anybody else because they think their hard work alone is worth something. I completely disagree that they have achieved anything at all. Book learning is mostly a waste of time. I quit school at 17 and never regretted it for a minute. I write better than college graduates who asked me to proof them. How come I can figure out the correct reading of the Gospel of Judas and NONE of the scholars with their 49 conference papers has a clue? Judas is the sacrifice! No wonder they have endless debate about good Judas/bad Judas. They never see that he is a changing Judas. They know more than I do about religion, but it is mostly wrong and of little importance when right.

Thank God I don't need to learn Coptic! I really would love to but languages are very hard for me to learn at 66. I want to know Korean too, so I don''t need to read the subtitles on the soaps my wife and I love to watch on DVD. If you just read three books by the Masters you will know what is important and what is not. Sant Mat suffuses all the gnostic writings. The Bibleis full of mysticism, but you need to recognize it when you see it.

I think this evil world thing of the Gnostics is overblown. They just mean as Masters all do, that we need to learn to see it for what it is -- an illusion. THAT'S ALL. Why stay in delusion, when you can open your eye (singular)? The docetic thing (Jesus didn't really die) is the gnostics simply spinning the orthodoxy narrative to make it serve their teachings.

Eisenman only ignores his peers because he has none.

The extremist cult isn't Sant Mat with its living Masters, but Christianity. Always has been.
Last edited by Sahansdal on 27 Jul 2019, 02:03, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
SavannaEGoth
Posts: 185
Joined: 28 Mar 2019, 12:25
Favorite Book: Warriors
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 34
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-savannaegoth.html
Latest Review: Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler

Post by SavannaEGoth »

jlrinc wrote: 26 Jul 2019, 20:45 So let me see if I have your meaning. Jesus is telling Judas that he will have to sacrifice himself because he carries the master inside him? But Jesus doesn't exist he is really James telling Judas who doesn't really exist and who is also really James that he will have to sacrifice himself because he carries the master who is also really James? and so really James is telling James that he has to sacrifice himself because he is carrying James within him? Wait who is carrying James? Who is Judas talking to? Who was this gospel written for ? all those places where Judas asks Jesus a question is really just James talking to himself? nobody was confused by any of this then? You have to admit this might seem to some people a little hard to follow.
I love this comment. I don't really have anything else to add, you summed it up perfectly.
"I'm going to die whatever you do, but I'm not afraid."
- Yellowfang Warriors: Rising Storm
User avatar
SavannaEGoth
Posts: 185
Joined: 28 Mar 2019, 12:25
Favorite Book: Warriors
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 34
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-savannaegoth.html
Latest Review: Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler

Post by SavannaEGoth »

Sahansdal wrote: 26 Jul 2019, 10:25
SavannaEGoth wrote: 26 Jul 2019, 02:22 Just wanted to interject here because it seems the debate has picked up yet again. I get that these texts and many others dating back from early C.E. are precious or sacred to a lot of people. There's nothing wrong with that and I can respect someone for having faith in a religion. However, it admittedly rubs me the wrong way whenever I see someone insisting that their beliefs are the correct ones above all else. Every religion preaches this, and most frown upon and belittle the beliefs of other organizations and cults.

Frankly, none of us know for sure what happened because we weren't there. The men who wrote the different books of the bible or penned scrolls and other relgious texts for other religions could have added just about whatever they wanted to embelish their stories or impose their own ideas. Historically and spiritually speaking, none of us know what truly happened in certain situations and we never will. Having faith in something is absolutely fine, but I cannot put stock in the words of anyone claiming that their beliefs are absolutely the right ones and are so because some other guy told them so. It doesn't matter if that person is a "Master" or a scholar or your grandmother. None of them were alive then so their opinions hold just as much value as anyone else's.

I'm sure this is going to be polarizing to some of the people above, and almost certainly below, but I hope what I've said is at least considered.
True Masters, wherever and whenever they show up, are not like you and I. They are fully realized and all teach the same Way to realization. It has always been so, and always will be so. You just have to identify them. They teach how to do that TOO. You do not need my opinion. There are eternally valid truths in the Teachings of the Masters, and what any one of the rest of us thinks about it matters not. One thing they all do is teach the Path of the Sound, or Word (NT), or Name of the Lord (OT), or Nam, or Shabd (Sant Mat), or Messenger (Qur'an), or Apophasis Logos, as the current discussion's writers called it (the Gnostics). This is all one and the same teaching. There is no other. The NT Gospels are the only outlier. They are trying to cover this UP. If you want to avoid rebirth (we all die), you will need to look for a true living Master and do what he says (Matt. 7:21, John 6:40). Jesus wasn't a Master, since he is unknown to history. James was. HE was the Master, and likely responsible for the red-letter quotes we all know and love. I have studied this for years. One reason the world is such a mess and getting worse under Trump is because of ignorance about spirituality. If I speak boldly, I'm sorry. I don't care if people find certitude offensive. Take it or leave it. I get nothing for doing this, actually t costs me. I do it because I am tired of the nonsense I hear everywhere and what that is doing to us all.

Many Masters' writings, from a number of traditions, are represented HERE > www.Scienceofthesoul.org (www.rssb.org is the admin website of the current Master) Here is this week's North American appearance of the current Master, Baba Ji Gurinder Singh: www.Petalumaprogram.org and www.Fayettevilleprogram.org
All the same, literally anyone can claim to be a Master, and as long as they're charismatic and read certain texts so that they may understand and discuss them, they'll be able to convince others that they're "special." They're just people.
"I'm going to die whatever you do, but I'm not afraid."
- Yellowfang Warriors: Rising Storm
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal »

SavannaEGoth wrote: 27 Jul 2019, 01:49
Sahansdal wrote: 26 Jul 2019, 10:25
SavannaEGoth wrote: 26 Jul 2019, 02:22 Just wanted to interject here because it seems the debate has picked up yet again. I get that these texts and many others dating back from early C.E. are precious or sacred to a lot of people. There's nothing wrong with that and I can respect someone for having faith in a religion. However, it admittedly rubs me the wrong way whenever I see someone insisting that their beliefs are the correct ones above all else. Every religion preaches this, and most frown upon and belittle the beliefs of other organizations and cults.

Frankly, none of us know for sure what happened because we weren't there. The men who wrote the different books of the bible or penned scrolls and other relgious texts for other religions could have added just about whatever they wanted to embelish their stories or impose their own ideas. Historically and spiritually speaking, none of us know what truly happened in certain situations and we never will. Having faith in something is absolutely fine, but I cannot put stock in the words of anyone claiming that their beliefs are absolutely the right ones and are so because some other guy told them so. It doesn't matter if that person is a "Master" or a scholar or your grandmother. None of them were alive then so their opinions hold just as much value as anyone else's.

I'm sure this is going to be polarizing to some of the people above, and almost certainly below, but I hope what I've said is at least considered.
True Masters, wherever and whenever they show up, are not like you and I. They are fully realized and all teach the same Way to realization. It has always been so, and always will be so. You just have to identify them. They teach how to do that TOO. You do not need my opinion. There are eternally valid truths in the Teachings of the Masters, and what any one of the rest of us thinks about it matters not. One thing they all do is teach the Path of the Sound, or Word (NT), or Name of the Lord (OT), or Nam, or Shabd (Sant Mat), or Messenger (Qur'an), or Apophasis Logos, as the current discussion's writers called it (the Gnostics). This is all one and the same teaching. There is no other. The NT Gospels are the only outlier. They are trying to cover this UP. If you want to avoid rebirth (we all die), you will need to look for a true living Master and do what he says (Matt. 7:21, John 6:40). Jesus wasn't a Master, since he is unknown to history. James was. HE was the Master, and likely responsible for the red-letter quotes we all know and love. I have studied this for years. One reason the world is such a mess and getting worse under Trump is because of ignorance about spirituality. If I speak boldly, I'm sorry. I don't care if people find certitude offensive. Take it or leave it. I get nothing for doing this, actually t costs me. I do it because I am tired of the nonsense I hear everywhere and what that is doing to us all.

Many Masters' writings, from a number of traditions, are represented HERE > www.Scienceofthesoul.org (www.rssb.org is the admin website of the current Master) Here is this week's North American appearance of the current Master, Baba Ji Gurinder Singh: www.Petalumaprogram.org and www.Fayettevilleprogram.org
All the same, literally anyone can claim to be a Master, and as long as they're charismatic and read certain texts so that they may understand and discuss them, they'll be able to convince others that they're "special." They're just people.
Of course. That's why they tell us how to recognize a real one It's on page 239 of my first book. Ten ways to know a true Master from a false one, https://www.amazon.com/Bible-says-Savio ... ler+robert

Not just anyone can be a Sant Sat Guru Master. Even true Masters, fully realized, have to be chosen to be initiating Masters,
Sahansdal
Posts: 602
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal »

Sahansdal wrote: 27 Jul 2019, 02:09
SavannaEGoth wrote: 27 Jul 2019, 01:49
Sahansdal wrote: 26 Jul 2019, 10:25

True Masters, wherever and whenever they show up, are not like you and I. They are fully realized and all teach the same Way to realization. It has always been so, and always will be so. You just have to identify them. They teach how to do that TOO. You do not need my opinion. There are eternally valid truths in the Teachings of the Masters, and what any one of the rest of us thinks about it matters not. One thing they all do is teach the Path of the Sound, or Word (NT), or Name of the Lord (OT), or Nam, or Shabd (Sant Mat), or Messenger (Qur'an), or Apophasis Logos, as the current discussion's writers called it (the Gnostics). This is all one and the same teaching. There is no other. The NT Gospels are the only outlier. They are trying to cover this UP. If you want to avoid rebirth (we all die), you will need to look for a true living Master and do what he says (Matt. 7:21, John 6:40). Jesus wasn't a Master, since he is unknown to history. James was. HE was the Master, and likely responsible for the red-letter quotes we all know and love. I have studied this for years. One reason the world is such a mess and getting worse under Trump is because of ignorance about spirituality. If I speak boldly, I'm sorry. I don't care if people find certitude offensive. Take it or leave it. I get nothing for doing this, actually t costs me. I do it because I am tired of the nonsense I hear everywhere and what that is doing to us all.

Many Masters' writings, from a number of traditions, are represented HERE > www.Scienceofthesoul.org (www.rssb.org is the admin website of the current Master) Here is this week's North American appearance of the current Master, Baba Ji Gurinder Singh: www.Petalumaprogram.org and www.Fayettevilleprogram.org
All the same, literally anyone can claim to be a Master, and as long as they're charismatic and read certain texts so that they may understand and discuss them, they'll be able to convince others that they're "special." They're just people.
Of course. That's why they tell us how to recognize a real one It's on page 239 of my first book. Ten ways to know a true Master from a false one, https://www.amazon.com/Bible-says-Savio ... ler+robert

Not just anyone can be a Sant Sat Guru Master. Even true Masters --fully realized -- have to be chosen to be initiating Masters. They all teach this and all the other necessary qualities that must be present. I can list them, but it's too late, my wife's mother had a 96-yr. b-day party tonight. Lots of family.

Even eency weency details of Sant Mat are found in gnostic and orthodox (inverted) sources. I'll go over a few later.
cassibear13
Posts: 30
Joined: 26 Jul 2019, 15:54
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by cassibear13 »

There are so many different "truths" out there, and nearly everyone calls the other "truths" fables. I think that you should find what you believe in but keep an open mind to everything. I found that this book was written could either support or oppose Judas' ideals.
User avatar
Lisa A Rayburn
Previous Member of the Month
Posts: 2977
Joined: 09 May 2018, 07:34
Currently Reading: Fluff Dragon
Bookshelf Size: 267
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-lisa-a-rayburn.html
Latest Review: Nightlord: Sunset by Garon Whited
Reading Device: B018QAYM7C

Post by Lisa A Rayburn »

cassibear13 wrote: 28 Jul 2019, 16:41 There are so many different "truths" out there, and nearly everyone calls the other "truths" fables. I think that you should find what you believe in but keep an open mind to everything. I found that this book was written could either support or oppose Judas' ideals.
I love your response. Just because you have found your own beliefs doesn't mean that the beliefs of others are any less valid for them. Keeping an open mind is essential. I appreciate your stopping by and sharing your thoughts!
User avatar
supernatural143
Posts: 154
Joined: 29 Jul 2019, 05:12
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 113
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-supernatural143.html
Latest Review: The Killers Ruse by Darrin Friedman

Post by supernatural143 »

I am giving the author respect for his opinion and research. I have a different view. I could not convince him to believe in what I believe in. He couldn't convince me to believe in what he believes in.
Post Reply

Return to “Discuss "Misreading Judas" by Robert Wahler”