Does the book change your religeous beliefs?

[Sahansdal]

Mind you, I am not Christian. But no, this book did not change any belief I already held. If anything it just affirmed things I already privately thought about the nature of Judas.


It has always been very strange to me that people recognize that Jesus’ death was all in their God’s plan, and necessary for human salvation but then treat Judas as this evil betrayer when if they are correct in the fact that Jesus’ death was necessary and good then Judas’ sacrifice of his master was also necessary and good.


What I did find interesting/mind opening, as a Hindu, was the author’s mixing of Hindu thought into his understanding of the gospel of Judas. I do not know that it is remotely accurate but it was interesting and warrants further research on my part.

What the Gospel of Judas does that is so important is show that the sacrifice was of SELF. The Pauline orthodoxy flipped the story on its head as a way to hide that there was a successor, James ('Judas'). Now the way is clear to see that living Masters are the true Way to salvation, and always have been (Genesis 4:26 is about savior Seth. "Calling on the Name of the Lord" is the same as meditation on the inner Word). There are over two million initiates into the Path today, initiated by two recent living Masters. rssb.org

[Sahansdal]

I'm going to pass on this one. While I make a point of NOT avoiding things that disagree with my beliefs, I also don't want to waste the amount of time that reading a whole book would take. Based on the other reviews, it sounds like the author is starting at such a different perspective than my own, I believe that the book would just irritate me. I would rather read something I enjoy!

Amen. Life is too short to start projects that you don't even wish to finish. Good for you.

Thanks, I realized that this comes across like I am a complete snob, which I really try not to me, so I am glad somebody understood what I was trying to say!

What is wrong with getting out of the comfort zone? After all, it took a lot of discomfort to write it. = the Author

[MirageParul]

If one book could change your religious outlook then, in my opinion you are not strong in your faith. So, the answer to the question, for me, is no.

Very well said! And I agree, one book can't change one's long-held convictions. The arguments might be interesting, but not enough.

[Sahansdal]

If one book could change your religious outlook then, in my opinion you are not strong in your faith. So, the answer to the question, for me, is no.

Very well said! And I agree, one book can't change one's long-held convictions. The arguments might be interesting, but not enough.

I was a Christian in 1974. Then In 1975, I saw this book. http://www.scienceofthesoul.org/product_p/en-036-0.htm
It changed the course of my life forever. So one book can change one's long-held convictions. If you are a Christian, didn't the Bible change yours? I don't see why anyone thinks the Bible is unique.

[MirageParul]

I was a Christian in 1974. Then In 1975, I saw this book. http://www.scienceofthesoul.org/product_p/en-036-0.htm
It changed the course of my life forever. So one book can change one's long-held convictions. If you are a Christian, didn't the Bible change yours? I don't see why anyone thinks the Bible is unique.

I'm sorry, I did not mean to be dismissive about your book. In fact, I'm a Hindu, not Christian. I've read a few books that question the behaviour/values/acts of (Hindu) God's avatars on earth, and I was not swayed by any of them. Although I'm aware that Hinduism and Christianity differ in fundamentals like chalk from cheese, I believe faith itself is inherently unshakeable, whether in the Bible or the Ramayan.

[cmabramo]

No it doesn't. It's sounds like an interesting take on a story/situation that is so well known, but it wouldn't change my actual beliefs. There is no amount of suffering or temptation that Judas endured that Jesus himself did not also encounter, but Jesus remained pure throughout. Judas allowed his experiences to lead him to this hive betrayal.

[Sahansdal]

No it doesn't. It's sounds like an interesting take on a story/situation that is so well known, but it wouldn't change my actual beliefs. There is no amount of suffering or temptation that Judas endured that Jesus himself did not also encounter, but Jesus remained pure throughout. Judas allowed his experiences to lead him to this hive betrayal.

None of it happened. The Gospels are polemic, not history. Why does everyone so easily accept it as true history? Read one of the few experts who say so: Dr. Robert Eisenman. http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Sea-Scrolls- ... s+eisenman
http://www.amazon.com/James-Brother-Jes ... pd_sim_b_2

[Kajori Sheryl Paul]

Well, tye views portrayed in this book is definitely intriguing. However, I am not sure tgat they are enough to change deep-seated beliefs.

[Sahansdal]

Well, tye views portrayed in this book is definitely intriguing. However, I am not sure tgat they are enough to change deep-seated beliefs.

I tried to avoid faith as a topic, and stuck to the literary evidence.

[Thabang Amos]

I think it would be far fetched to say that it has altered my religious beliefs because one think that I have learnt over time is that religion is something that I just can't change overnight and it has become apart of me. Though the books shows details about Judas, it's hard to think it would alter anything

[Nisha Ward]

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 religeous beliefs?

I guess it would depend how much faith you place in the truth of the Gnostic gospels in the first place, wouldn't it? I'm preparing to read this but it seems to me that it's quite the controversial topic, given where these gospels are often sourced in the first place.

[Sahansdal]

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 religeous beliefs?

I guess it would depend how much faith you place in the truth of the Gnostic gospels in the first place, wouldn't it? I'm preparing to read this but it seems to me that it's quite the controversial topic, given where these gospels are often sourced in the first place.

Nisha,

What does that mean? 'Where they are sourced'? They are writings of second and third century Gnostics of Egypt. Maybe the sources go back to first century. I certainly think so. The logic is there, given the details of the teachings. I practice mysticism. That is what these Gnostics practiced. I know their teachings as my own. They are legitimate meditation practice, as taught by real, living, breathing Masters (Maharaj Charan Singh, rssb.org). I know what I'm talking about, and so did the authors of these writings. They had to be buried to save them from the orthodox zealots who were after them with malevolent intent. My book seeks to prove that no matter what you believe, you can see which story is original.

[Nisha Ward]

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 religeous beliefs?

I guess it would depend how much faith you place in the truth of the Gnostic gospels in the first place, wouldn't it? I'm preparing to read this but it seems to me that it's quite the controversial topic, given where these gospels are often sourced in the first place.

Nisha,

What does that mean? 'Where they are sourced'? They are writings of second and third century Gnostics of Egypt. Maybe the sources go back to first century. I certainly think so. The logic is there, given the details of the teachings. I practice mysticism. That is what these Gnostics practiced. I know their teachings as my own. They are legitimate meditation practice, as taught by real, living, breathing Masters (Maharaj Charan Singh, rssb.org). I know what I'm talking about, and so did the authors of these writings. They had to be buried to save them from the orthodox zealots who were after them with malevolent intent. My book seeks to prove that no matter what you believe, you can see which story is original.

Error of vague phrasing, my apologies. I meant in the more strongly Catholic world and probably should have said that. Mysticism and alternatives to Catholicism are always controversial to that branch of faith and my phrasing might have had some residual lack of nuance from when I was a practising Catholic.

I also meant sourcing as coming from a Catholic perspective as opposed to the more neutral geo-historical meaning as Catholics tend to look upon gospels falling under Gnosticism as not the true gospels. Me? I don't know that I'd subscribe to that view of Gnoticism or if i ever subscribed to it in the first place, given that I don't believe that only four of the apostles thought to write their own accounts.

Again, my phrasing was clumsy and just bad, so my apologies for the offense.

[Sahansdal]

I guess it would depend how much faith you place in the truth of the Gnostic gospels in the first place, wouldn't it? I'm preparing to read this but it seems to me that it's quite the controversial topic, given where these gospels are often sourced in the first place.

Nisha,

What does that mean? 'Where they are sourced'? They are writings of second and third century Gnostics of Egypt. Maybe the sources go back to first century. I certainly think so. The logic is there, given the details of the teachings. I practice mysticism. That is what these Gnostics practiced. I know their teachings as my own. They are legitimate meditation practice, as taught by real, living, breathing Masters (Maharaj Charan Singh, rssb.org). I know what I'm talking about, and so did the authors of these writings. They had to be buried to save them from the orthodox zealots who were after them with malevolent intent. My book seeks to prove that no matter what you believe, you can see which story is original.

Error of vague phrasing, my apologies. I meant in the more strongly Catholic world and probably should have said that. Mysticism and alternatives to Catholicism are always controversial to that branch of faith and my phrasing might have had some residual lack of nuance from when I was a practising Catholic.

I also meant sourcing as coming from a Catholic perspective as opposed to the more neutral geo-historical meaning as Catholics tend to look upon gospels falling under Gnosticism as not the true gospels. Me? I don't know that I'd subscribe to that view of Gnoticism or if i ever subscribed to it in the first place, given that I don't believe that only four of the apostles thought to write their own accounts.

Again, my phrasing was clumsy and just bad, so my apologies for the offense.

No offense. Maybe I came off as annoyed. I 'm not annoyed. I sincerely wanted to know just what you meant. One thing you need to accept is that none of the Gospels were written by 'apostles,' if there indeed were any. They could not have written with such educated Greek. The style of the Gospels is amazingly refined. I don't subscribe to what they say, but the writing is second to none as literature. But no serious scholar believes anymore that they were written by immediate members of Christ's entourage, given he really lived at all. I don't think so. The more I studied the New Testament, the more convinced I became that there was no Jesus -- only James. John the Baptist, James, and Peter. They were the Masters, in that order. There have been hundreds of Masters. I have seen two (Charan Singh, and Baba Ji Gurinder Singh). My first book goes into the ways one can recognize a Master.

The teachings are very consistent, they are always mystic and don't involve the Master dying as a sacrifice. Hosea 6:6 will not accept that. Ecc. 1:9 also says that there can be nothing "new" - as in NEW Testament. The NT is not information, but disinformation. It was solely intended to hide that there was a mastership succession. Paul killed James. That's why 'Stephen' was invented. Stephen covers James in the stoning of James story in Acts 7. Luke had to come up with a story segment for what happened to James. He is hard to find in the narrative, as so many characters cover him. Judas is the main one, anywhere you see him, but others cover events of his life and death -- even Jesus.

Dr. Robert Eisenman gave me the idea of Judas as James. He shows the telltale details of Acts 1, and I show the details in The Betrayal. They are fascinating, as you will see.

[Bretagne]

I’m not sure I’d say the book changes my religious beliefs, but I did find it interesting to find a comparison between a series of texts rather than one source. Generally speaking, I’m not a fan of interpreting texts for their exact definition, but it really did bring new perspective here.