Let's not forget that the Freemasons in themselves are not a "Satanic" group, nor is there anything negative about it. In fact it's quite the opposite. Freemasonry is based on Gnostic Kabbalah, which is ancient metaphysical science based on sacred geometry and "White Magic". Our founding fathers were Masons and most people in those days were quite aware of the Illuminati (please don't make me pull up the George Washington quotes fully acknowledging them). Adam Weishaupt chose the Masons to infiltrate because they were the largest and most well respected Christian organization with the widest influence, knowing it would be the perfect place to hide, toppling governments and further corrupting religions from within. This is backed up and confirmed in the Freemasons' "Bible", Morals and Dogma by their all-time Grand Poobah Albert Pike.
True Authorship of New Testament
Part of it is true. Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John probably did not write the gospels. Rather, followers later in time wrote the gospels and used the name of their church leader or superstar apostle. It was not fraudulent in its day. Using someone's name to show how special your work was common. There is no way of knowing whether Jesus actually lived. Most academic scholars believe he did exist. The Italian name I have never heard before.
I don't know if the author gave a timeline but they were in existence fairly early in the church's existence. Different churches had different favorite gospels. Some had local gospels that were only used in a small area. When the canon was set, there was much debate b/c it was obvious the gospels were not in accord on some matters. One gospel was proposed, a blending of the four. The view that the truth could only be apprpehended by the gestalt of the four prevailed.
Your English is very impressive.
Basically, I don't believe in conspiracies much. Yes, criminal law conspiracies exist but not the Da Vinci Code, Kennedy assassination (tho I do believe the Warren Comission was not forthcoming, 9/11. I believe in bungling mundane every day life.
If Josephus wanted to promote this myth as historical fact, you would think he would have mentioned Jesus, but the fact is that he never did.
Josephus is one of the non NT sources for Jesus, but he says little.
Josephus is a writer who had an agenda, before and after his switching sides in the war.
"It was not fraudulent in its day. Using someone's name to show how special your work was common."
This is a myth, and is not suppported by factual evidence, even from Paul's genuine writings.
I highly recommend that you get hold of Bart Ehrman's book, "Forged".
I wonder whether the Gnostic Christians were able to influence the formation of the final Canon. Some of the NT writings directly confront that later emerging "heresy".
It is wonderful that we are still able to read a lot of the writings that were omitted from the canon formulated by the trinitarian Athanasius, and to see the contemporary alternative canons: "Lost Scriptures: Books that did not make it into the New Testament", Bart Ehrman.
Doug, just wanted to say i enjoyed your post .
I studied under Elaine Pagels herself. She is a extremely reputable source. It is directly from her class. Also, N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg.
There was a nicer, kinder way of making your assertion. Just to let you know, I can duel you with academics x 100. I'd really rather concentrate on core. It took more than hubris to have the gall to correct me. You could say, gee, Band, I read.....in.......Have you read that? Do you have any thoughts?
Abuse is freely available from the WTBTS. I don't come here for it.
I stand 3,000 percent behind the merits of my statement. Can't we make nice like good little children?
Ecuse me. Please add Dominic Crossan and Karen Armstrong. I have a slew of bookss. It has been my passion for decades. Paul Kee is another. Also, The Gnostics for Dummies.
If you want to have a joint call to Prof. Pagels at Princeton, I am more than ready.
I am not certain if your sensitivities were touched by my comments, or not. Please do not get personally offended by me, as none was ever intended.
My position is that no two of us has the same beliefs or understandings. These are moulded over the years through our many encounters, which we check against our pre-existing models. Many encounters will cause us to make adjustments to our models.
Often what we are hearing or reading, regardless of the impeccable source that it might be, often produces an outcome in the hearer or reader that the speaker or writer had never intended or even forseen.
You set out your qualifications, so I give you mine: University of Hard Knocks, Faculty of Life.
Several NT writings were not penned by their alleged authors. This makes them forgeries, products of the intent to deceive.
It is beyond my belief that it would be said that the early Christian community tolerated forgery, fraud, and deceit. That would run counter to Jesus’ alleged words: “Watch out for deceivers”.
Today, forgery, misrepresentation, and deception are punishable as criminal, and there is no indication they were tolerated at the time the NT writings were created.
Earlier, the desire to root out such heinous practices resulted in the euphoria experienced by Archimedes. Today, forgery, fraud, and deceit can result in lengthy incarceration.
What would anyone say today should I write a book or article and then publish it with the claim that it was they who was the author? Utter outrage, at the very least. And deservedly so.
There is much evidence which identifies those canonised writings that were falsely identified as written by someone else. Why do people perpetuate the myth that these practices were acceptable to the early church?
It is quite ironic, yet revealing at the same time, that the forged writing now known as 2 Thessalonians, should warn people against forgeries that were being put out in Paul’s name: “We ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us .” (2 Thess. 2:1-2, NIV)
A revealing study, yet by no means unique, is “Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are”, Bart Ehrman.