Does the book change your religeous beliefs?

[Aftab Yunis]

For me this book has provided me another view to look at gnostics beliefs. Before reading this book, I thought the objection of gnostics against Christianity is based on merely Jesus humanity, but after reading few pages of it, I concluded that they do not believe salvation through Jesus also.
Thus, it did not change my religious belief, rather it gave me very different perspective to look at their belief.

[Sahansdal]

For me this book has provided me another view to look at gnostics beliefs. Before reading this book, I thought the objection of gnostics against Christianity is based on merely Jesus humanity, but after reading few pages of it, I concluded that they do not believe salvation through Jesus also.
Thus, it did not change my religious belief, rather it gave me very different perspective to look at their belief.

That's probably true. My point is we have proof that the orthodox message is an aberration, a corruption of the mystic, gnostic message that is as true today as was then. I started as an orthodox Christian myself.

[Aftab Yunis]

For me this book has provided me another view to look at gnostics beliefs. Before reading this book, I thought the objection of gnostics against Christianity is based on merely Jesus humanity, but after reading few pages of it, I concluded that they do not believe salvation through Jesus also.
Thus, it did not change my religious belief, rather it gave me very different perspective to look at their belief.

That's probably true. My point is we have proof that the orthodox message is an aberration, a corruption of the mystic, gnostic message that is as true today as was then. I started as an orthodox Christian myself.

Thank you for your response, I appreciate your understanding.

[yapashley]

It definitely doesn't change my perception of Judas.

[Sahansdal]

Thanks for commenting. I will try harder.

[JeanyJean]

However interesting the author's arguments are, I don't think they would change anything for me.

I agree with you. The arguments made by the author are very interesting and would have made a lot of sense if I didn't know the story of Judas. But now that I know the story as narrated in the Bible,the book doesn't change how I see Judas. He was a traitor and he betrayed Jesus who loved Him so dearly.

[Sahansdal]

However interesting the author's arguments are, I don't think they would change anything for me.

I agree with you. The arguments made by the author are very interesting and would have made a lot of sense if I didn't know the story of Judas. But now that I know the story as narrated in the Bible,the book doesn't change how I see Judas. He was a traitor and he betrayed Jesus who lo I loved Him so dearly.

And you know this to be a true life story how? Virtually every story in the NT can be shown to have been sourced elsewhere, like the Tanak (OT), Greek and Roman classics (like Virgil and Homer, in Acts' travels of Paul, for example). I just took the Gospels and sourced them in the Nag Hammadi Apocalypses. I believe I proved my case. Sorry you don't find it persuasive. There are other ways to prove the Bible is fictional, but you need an open mind to do it.

[keiyoshi]

I've just recently read the book and I don't think it was enough for me to change my view of Judas.

[Sahansdal]

I've just recently read the book and I don't think it was enough for me to change my view of Judas.

Why is it that
people believe the Bible? You don't even know who wrote it.

[keiyoshi]

I've just recently read the book and I don't think it was enough for me to change my view of Judas.

Why is it that
people believe the Bible? You don't even know who wrote it.

If I remember correctly, the Bible was already proven true through various methods, including cross-checking of the historical accounts of the prophets. I can't seem to remember where I read the article. I'm sure it's around somewhere.

However, there have been claims that the Council of Nicaea had to omit some parts of it to maintain the consistency of Jesus Christ's divinity. I'm not sure how true this is, but that might account for other perspective on things, like the one you presented.

Still, yours was a great work and truly deserving of the BOTM. Congratulations!

[Sahansdal]

I think you'll find that depends on who is doing the "checking." Apologists are many, critics few. But there are some. Richard Carrier (On the Historicity of Jesus) and Robert Price (Jesus is Dead), both smart Ph.D.s, have written perhaps the best cases against the historicity of the New Testament. Many others like Richard Pervo (The Mystery of Acts) and David Fitzgerald (Nailed) are nearly as persuasive. By page 110 of Carrier's massive book I was convinced that the Gospels were fictional. I was open to either way, and he made his case. I used to be a 24/7 Born-again.

[Moneybag]

No it does not and will never.

[Gandhi_D 1st]

The book seeks to change the normal belief of Judas as the traitor and makes him to have made the ultimate sacrifice. Does the book change or even shake your religious beliefs?

No, it does change my religious belief but although made some relevant points about someone making the ultimate sacrifice and Judas was the one.