EMISSARY^7 (G²)

COMMISIONED by CHRIST 4 SHARING HIS LIFE/KEEPING IT REAL ADMIST THE LIES (II Cor. 5:17-21))

PLAGERISM: Humble Inquiry on whether it can be done with Cults/Unbelievers

Posted by Gabriel (G²) on October 20, 2007

PLAGERISM: A Different Spin on the Subject (regarding WOF, Cults, Unbelievers,…) To begin, a reference on the definition of plagiarismQuote:

Plagiarism (from Latin plagiare “to kidnap”) is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship or incorporating material from someone else’s written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one’s own without adequate acknowledgement. Unlike cases of forgery, in which the authenticity of the writing, document, or some other kind of object, itself is in question, plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagerism )

Continuing, with that in view……

I was wondering whether or not anyone had any insight on an issue I’ve been struggling with for awhile. If the taking of another’s thoughts as one’s own is ALWAYS wrong and credit/reference is always due, Question: Why would someone who is against anything they consider to be Herectical/”Cultic”/Non-Christian not be willing to reference an idea they may have that another from that particular individual/organization in scrutiny HAD FIRST, even if the resulting idea was indeed Biblical, factual, original and insightful?Moreover, seeing that all TRUTH/WISDOM/KNOWLEDGE Originated in the Mind of God, would it be right of me to ignore a powerful truth someone raised rather than acknowledge whether or not the Bible/Christ is the source behind it and try to attempt to separate the fact from the falsehood?

In case what I’m saying isn’t making sense, The reason I’m asking is because there have been many instances where I’ve seen individuals within Herectical/Cultic groups have made MANY EXCELLENT BIBLICAL POINTS, phrasing them in very well-written style……and yet the information was ENTIRELY DISMISSED without any consideration to the person who made it.

For example, consider the example with WORD OF FAITH, a group that many Christians consider to be herectical in their teaching. If one were to regurgitate the same idea to another without reference to the author, there would seemingly be no problem and many would heartily agree that the point was more than welcomed…..but the moment one says “Oh, that idea was formulated by this individual within WORD OF FAITH (a group that many Christians consider to be herectical in their teaching)….”, or “By the way, the phenomenal idea was made by a Mormon/Jehova’s Witness…”, the idea is often completely dismissed due to possible pre-conceived bias one may or may not have on the source.

Sometimes, a person may even take the thought as his or her own and not even acknowledge that they are NOT the ones who originally thought of the idea, and may claim “I don’t have to give any credit to someone from that organization. They’re already off, so how could they have ever come up with any original/solid truth to begin with?!”

To me, this may possibly be a mishandling of Information and a bit extreme of action. When I consider, for example, the myriad of people throughout history who’ve made many powerful points/ideas, whether they were good or not (from Gandhi to Malcolm X, Napoleon, Caesar, Socrates, and countless others), I’m very hesitant to dismiss them completely in referencing something they’ve thought of that was extremely wise.

For example, I wouldn’t dismiss Thomas Edison because he was a Deist, despite the radical ideas he came up with for our society. Nor would I ignore some of the powerful principles Gandhi stated regarding the resistance of tyranny through mass civil disobediance/total non-violence that momumentally shaped the thinking/success of many in the Civil Rights Movement because he was an unbeliever/A student of Hindu philosophy…… Or any of the wisdom/ways of Socrates, Plato and others of Greek Thinking—many whom we form modern day basis for rational/logical thinking and other things—simply because they were not explicitly BIBLICALLY BASED/GOD-FEARING in their mentalities?

In my view, TRUTH SPOKEN IS TRUTH SPOKEN, though I would never link myself up with any of these men in ministry or seek to condone their actions, contrary to the commands of Scripture:

(Ephesians 5:11-12).

Ephesians 5:10-12

11(B)Do not participate in the unfruitful (C)deeds of (D)darkness, but instead even (E)expose them;
12for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.

To balance things out,

Romans 16:17-19

17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.

2 John 1:7-11

Beware of Antichrist Deceivers

7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8 Look to yourselves, that we[a] do not lose those things we worked for, but that we[b] may receive a full reward.

9 Whoever transgresses[c] and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

Now, perhaps I’m wrong………but I don’t think that John was implying that a person teaching false doctrine shouldn’t have the things said by them that are factual rejected/un-examined ALONGSIDE all the e other foolishness we should reject outrightly.

From what John seems to be saying, believers were not to show hospitality to false teachers/THEIR FALSE TEACHINGS ……in fact, they were to do nothing that would encourage the herectics in their propagation of falsehoods….and if believers were to invite them in, such action would show that they were approving of what the false teachers said/did.

It’s not that John was saying that we should forbid common courtesy….Rather than condeming hospitality to unbelievers, he again was condeming the ACTIVE TOTAL SUPPORT of those who are dedicated to opposing the true teachings of God, for in choosing not to prohibit action that will encourage the herectics in their work, the church would be undermined in it’s efforts to spread the Gospel….to be hospitable/support a false teacher in any way would be to share int the teacher’s wicked work and not the Work of God!!

Personally, however, I’ve always been of the mindset that if someone is teaching false and true things as well, that it’d best to simply see what things they’re say is Biblical or not, take that which is BIBLICAL and accept it while SIMULTANEOUSLY throwing away the rest of what they have to offer regardless.

For example, if someone like Creflo Dollar said something that was UNBIBLICAL one week but that was actually based in TRUTH the next, I know how confusing it would be for someone not knowing the Word of God fully. They would have questions, as I did, asking “How can the man be wrong if he’s still saying things that are correct?”……and I’ve been there myself plenty of times.

And usually, it was because someone who knew better than to trust him but understood I needed clarity as well went alongside me to exmaine his teachings, compare them to the WORD of God, and show me what was Biblical in his statemenst as well as what was not so I could make a decision for myself. Would they’ve suggested that I go out and buy his books so I could read them for error?

By no means, for in buying the resources of those who promote error, we inadvertly represent/support the things they promote them, just as it is in a court of law when someone is guilty for something but you’re harboring something they used to commit a crime. Doing so implicats us as guilty as well.

However, again, I don’t think this necessarily means one should completely discount/not reference ANYTHING a false teacher or Non-Christian says, for there’s an element of truth in every wrong teaching promoted today and maintaing a “THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER” mentality can be just as dangerous as holding onto ALL a false teacher has to offer.

Moreover, although we’re not to accept the False teachings of individuals as a WHOLE even if they have correct things to say, I think part of being discerning is learning how to recognize truth from error and to think critically, which implies in my opinion listenting/referencing to what a false teacher may say from time to time (at least, from a distance) and later taking it back to the WORD for verification, and by simply being up to date on what he says and knowing how it compared to the counsel of the Lord, it helped me be that much more prepared to know what’s up and warn others about Him (although there are some who may say otherwise, as seen in this article against those with a “eat the meat and swollow the bones” mentality

http://www.seekgod.ca/soundoctrine.htm

MOREOVER, I realize that GOD IS THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF ALL LIFECHANGING TRUTH……and if someone in a Cultic Group/crew makes a Biblically sound/original statement, I should reference it/ACCEPT it regardless and take it for what it is.

Even Solomon, it seemed, may’ve had this mentality to a degree…..Regarding the book of Proverbs, which contains many practical expressions of general truth rooted in God, there were many points where He did not author information but simply collected/compiled the information for what it was and didn’t hesitate to place the information out before others because the authors may not’ve been explicitly For God (for instance, consider Proverbs 22:17 through Proverb 24:34, in which he collected/shared 77 proverbs, and godly principles most likely spoken by simple wise men)…….and what of the many wise sayings from others besides himself in other instances (Take, for example, the words of Agur, Proverbs 30:1-33, which are a collection of proverbs written by an unknown sage who may not of been explicitly Christian, but was a simple student of wisdom at the time of SOLOMON (I Kings 4:30-31…….Regardless of his possible doctrinal stance, the things he did say that were godly/biblically based were powerful nonetheless……But that’s just me, at the moment

If anyone is interested in sharing their thoughts, I’d love to hear. Again, this is not definite on what I believe. It was simply thoughts I’ve had at the moment and wanted more clarification on……

Looking forward to hearing ya’lls thoughts. Blessings…

Advertisements

10 Responses to “PLAGERISM: Humble Inquiry on whether it can be done with Cults/Unbelievers”

  1. Sos22 said

    Wow….

  2. sos22 said

    I think there are two separate issues here.

    The first is the question; is the truth still the truth whoever speaks it, or does the source change the truth somehow? The anwer is that the truth is always the truth whether I say it, or Hitler, or Christ.

    How the truth is perceived by those who hear it can very much be determined by where they think the information is coming from. We weren’t called sheep for nothing by Christ and we tend to favour information coming from our own group/culture/church/government than we would coming from a source unknown to us or especially a source we are actively hostile too.

    The other issue is of truth with a twist as I call it, and here context is everything. Satan himself ‘spoke’ Scripture to Christ in the desert, but it’s context and true meaning was twisted to serve Satan’s agenda, as He sought to tempt Christ away from His Father’s will for Him. It’s valuable to realise this when we might be in church situation or with a group of believers where the words can not be faulted but something jars in the spirit. As John wrote ‘test the spirits’ for not all come from God.

    It’s chastening to learn that the Jim Jones sect which ended up committing mass suicide began as a small Christian church with all the right words.

    At what point did the individuals in that ‘church’ discern that something was wrong and negate their God given right to disagree with the pastor and the party line.

    In instances of what I would term spiritual abuse at some point the victim is made to feel that if they disagree with the elder/paster/church they are sinning against God Himself.

    That is why I think that although church and fellowship are vital, nothing should be allowed to take the place of the lordship of Christ in the believer’s heart. It is the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth and nothing and no one should be allowed to take His place.

    So even though the words of the Bible are true, their use and context, and the motives of the person using them can twist the truth. Then you end up in a situation where the least that can happen is the that the letter of the law rules over the spirit of the law, and the worst?…….a situation like the Jim Jones mass suicide or the David Koresh siege or maybe the dark ‘truth’ of somewhere like Woodboro Baptist Church.

    Have I been confusing enough ……!

  3. emissary7 said

    Appreciate the feedback….and desiring more

    ——————————————————————————–

    Quote:
    sos22:Satan himself ‘spoke’ Scripture to Christ in the desert, but it’s context and true meaning was twisted to serve Satan’s agenda, as He sought to tempt Christ away from His Father’s will for Him. It’s valuable to realise this when we might be in church situation or with a group of believers where the words can not be faulted but something jars in the spirit. As John wrote ‘test the spirits’ for not all come from God.

    It’s chastening to learn that the Jim Jones sect which ended up committing mass suicide began as a small Christian church with all the right words.

    Powerful points, Brah…..I was reading that recently, and I realized that , like you said,
    Quote:
    How the truth is perceived by those who hear it can very much be determined by where they think the information is coming from.

    Sometimes, friends and associates will present attractive and convincing arguments/reasons why you should try something you know is wrong….and they even may find Bible Verses that seem to support their viewpoint.

    And Because of that, we have to Study the Bible carefully, especially the broader contexts of specific verses, so that you can understand God’s principles for living and what he wants for your life, for only if you really understand what the whole Bible says will you be able to recognize errors of interpretation when people take verses out of context and twist them to say what they want them to say.

    As someone else I was talking to once said,

    Quote:
    all truth is indeed God’s truth …. but, yes it certainly does matter who and what and why is speaking or using that truth.

    The clearest example of why this matters is given in the Gospels (e.g. Matthew 4:1-11), in the story of Jesus’ temptation in the desert ….

    Here we see that the devil sounds so concerned about Jesus’ welfare, and so eminently sensible in proposing an easy solution ….. it would surely not take a large display of power to make stones become bread, and it was necessary for Jesus to keep up His strength to do the work that God had for Him to do ….. but Jesus looks behind the words to who is speaking them…

    Then the devil again proposes an easy way to Jesus …. and this time, seeing that Jesus knows the Scriptures, the devil quotes Scripture to him to justify the proposed course of action …. and not just any Scripture, but from what are understood to be “messianic” psalms …. again, Jesus knows who is speaking, and He is not deceived.

    In the end the devil shows his hand and promises Jesus’ the world in return for His worship ….

    So yes, it matters who is speaking, it matters what they believe, and what their motivation is.

    But plagiarism is wrong … and all quotes should be acknowledged.

    in Christ

    All too true…..

    Quote:
    sos22: So even though the words of the Bible are true, their use and context, and the motives of the person using them can twist the truth. Then you end up in a situation where the least that can happen is the that the letter of the law rules over the spirit of the law, and the worst?…….a situation like the Jim Jones mass suicide or the David Koresh siege or maybe the dark ‘truth’ of somewhere like Woodboro Baptist Church.

    Powerful points, again, Brah…..but nonetheless, I’m still wondering whether or not we should reference someone with a life-changing idea/truth despite what they believe. Even if the idea they come up with may’ve been done with wrong intentions/motives, if they came up with it first and I come with it later, some may say that justice isn’t being done by my taking of an original idea/quote and not choosing to reference where it came from.

    Crazy as DAVID Koresh was or Jim Jones, all quotes should be acknowledged…..and it seems that there’s always going to be some kind of risk that an idea he quoted and I wish to use (after seeing whether it’s biblical/accurate, of course) may lead to someone being more interested in hearing him out.

    Then again, it may be incumbent uponn that person that he or she be studying the Word of God for themselves……because even if they were to be tempted to check out Jones teachings, when they know the WHOLE WORD oF God OR are aware of the history/character of the source they’re investigating and are seeking godly counsel, they may be able to wade through it and not be ensnared as easily as someone who doesn’t know any better.

    For that matter, I wonder whether or not someone who may say an ORIGINAL/POWERFUL idea with wrong intentions/context is like that necessarily in EVERY situation. Some organizations/people I distrust/question, of course, because of a rep they may have………but What of the times when they actually DO say something INGENIOUS but it was done with RIGHT MOTVIES/RIGHT CONTEXT?

    Do you think it would be appropiate to dismiss them at that point as well because of past instances where they’ve done otherwise, or should I still be willing to try/test things out?……..

    Any thoughts?

  4. kkll4ever said

    What of the intent of the individual? Could the individual be guilty of PLAGERISM if there was not the intent?

    If PLAGERISM is PLAGERISM regardless of intent, then have any of the things provided here are examples of PLAGERISM?

  5. emissary7 said

    Hi kkll4ever,

    Before responding, I wanted to make sure I was wise and asked you what you’re were implying by your question…..and, if possible, if you would please expound for me so I can be as certain as possible and not respond based on assumptions of what you meant.

    Quote:
    If PLAGERISM is PLAGERISM regardless of intent, then have any of the things provided here are examples of PLAGERISM?

    I think I have the basic gist of what you’re saying, though for the post I don’t think plagerism was present since all of the things here were referenced

    Quote:
    What of the intent of the individual? Could the individual be guilty of PLAGERISM if there was not the intent?

    Though this may not be directly related to your question, I think it might be worthwile to note that I’ve asked myself the EXACT thing multiple times before. Reminds me of things I used to ask myself all the time in highschool when writing research papers and brainstorming on things or discussing issues in class. I would be thinking on topics all of the time, and many of them I came up with on my own and wrote them with pride as if it were mine. If nothing else, even if someone else had come up with the idea, I was content that I had come up with it on my own as well and at least could build upon it with more original perspectives.

    However, my teachers would threaten me that because someone else had come up with the idea/statement before I did (even if I didn’t like/agree with the individual)…..I had to give them credit and continue to try to make up new ones for myself.

    That was extremely annoying to me, seeing that there was always the possibility that the idea someone came up with, which I had to referencce, was not the first one to actually come up with (just probably the first one to get it PUBLISHED, )….and it was annoying if I was accused of deliberately commiting plagerism after working hard, even if I was unaware of how someone else came up with the idea and never wished to discredit them.

    Moreover, I was always partially under the mentaliy that people should be more gracious/understanding when it comes to demanding that ideas should be referenced ALWAYS, for despite how oriiginal people can be, many ALREADY THINK ALIKE……

    And many of the thoughts one individual may come up with may simply be new packages of the same timeless thought patterns/mentalities that countless others have thought on before….many of which we may’VE never knowN/heard of, and consequently when we hear FOR THE FIRST TIME it in our modern times, we automatically think IT’S ORIGIANAL or that the person who spoke it THE MOST RECENTLY is due a copyright of it.

    Like Solomon said,
    Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

    9 What has been will be again,
    what has been done will be done again;
    there is nothing new under the sun.

    10 Is there anything of which one can say,
    “Look! This is something new”?
    It was here already, long ago;
    it was here before our time.

    But that’s just me sharing some more of my thoughts. Going back to the subject,Again, would you please mind on expounding on yours a bit more? Thanks

  6. kkll4ever said

    Have you stated a position based on the intellectual property of those you have studied, read or been taught by? And here you are using their reasoning and not giving them the credit?

    Double-G (G²) wrote: I think I have the basic gist of what you’re saying, though for the post I don’t think plagerism was present since all of the things here were referenced

    This produces another question. Then when did plagerism become plagerism and who rules are we to abide by. Does the bible even address the subject of plagerism?

    I’ve seen else on sites like CARM (www.carm.org ) where even Matt Slick dialoged regarding plagerism. Again, is there a biblical perspective on plagerism. This would be my greater interest then all the modern intellectual conclusions based on “?”

    Intent and you needing to give credit in every circumstance.

    The people whom we at times quote, where did they come up with the information? Maybe they plagerised someone and maybe the one they plagerised, plagerised as well.

    I understand that this is the rules of the game today, but as with anything of this nature, it is sometimes taken to the extreme that dialog is styphened.

  7. 1TrueDisciple said

    Originally Posted by kkll4ever

    What of the intent of the individual? Could the individual be guilty of PLAGERISM if there was not the intent?

    Unintentional plagiarism is still plagiarism. However, a couple of caveats are in order.

    First of all, ideas that are general public knowledge are treated differently from more specialized materials. For example, if someone wrote, “Abraham Lincoln entered this world among impoverished surroundings on February 12th, 1809” this would not be considered plagiarism UNLESS TWO OF THE EXACT WORDS IN THE EXACT SAME ORDER OR CERTAIN KEY WORDS (such as “impoverished surroundings”) ARE REPEATED FROM FROM THE SOURCE.

    Second, people with extensive educations often incorporate material they have learned into their own work at such an unconscious level that they may themselves not be aware if they commit unintentional plagiarism. In such cases, in a given work, if the instances are few and the plagiarisms are indistinctive, then the unintentional plagiarism may be overlooked.

    Anytime one is in doubt about whether something should be cited, it probably should since the doubt may have some basis. However, at the same time, it is unwise to cite every small detail in a work because that shows that the writer has provided no original ideas of his/her own in the piece–A student once gave me a 14 page thesis paper with 73 footnotes!

  8. sos22 said

    The quote you gave was interesting. In it the writer/speaker, emphasised the source of the words to Christ – Satan. It was Satan speaking therefore nothing he said could be believed. I can’t fault him on that, however others who twist and force Scripture to their agendas are not Satan and cannot be dismissed on those grounds.

    Look at what was said of Christ; I paraphrase: ‘why listen to Him, has anything good ever come out of Nazareth’. What a daft yet all too common reason to dismiss someone, and what a Someone! Think what they missed because they didn’t approve of the origin of this Man.

    I definitely agree with you that a broad knowledge of the Bible is needed to prevent taking certain verses out of their broader context and being mis-applied either mistakenly or to serve the hidden agenda of the quoter.But we don’t always have that broader knowledge and that is why the indwelling Holy Spirit can sound a warning when something sounds faultless but jars in the spirit.

    If Hitler amidst all his atrocities, had composed an exquisite piece of music or [presuming he could hold a tune!] or invented something wonderful, we would be utterly foolish not to take that good and at the same time reject all the evil he committed.

    So yes the source is important, past behaviour is usually a clear indicator of present motives and intention but no one is 100% Satan, except Satan, and a bad man could still have a truthful insight or made a truthful discovery. I certainly wouldn’t go searching for it in him, nor would I expect it but if I came across it, it is still the truth, still worthy, whatever the source.

  9. kkll4ever said

    So which is it? Plagerism or Not. Your comments starts rather absolutely, then appear to argue against itself. What I do take away is a more refined definition for unintentional plagerism.

    Would you be able to provide whether the bible speaks to this and what would be its position?

  10. emissary7 said

    Ssos22: It was Satan speaking therefore nothing he said could be believed. I can’t fault him on that, however others who twist and force Scripture to their agendas are not Satan and cannot be dismissed on those grounds.

    Excellent POINT, BRAH……How much damage is done because people are so often more concerned about the SOURCE they listen to rather than WORDS actually spoken. As I understand it, the only person who was DEVOID OF ANY TRUTH was the DEVIL, not any known person…or even those who may say wrong things OFTEN and often WITH WRONG MOTIVES.

    Quote:
    He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

    And as you excellently stated,
    Quote:
    past behaviour is usually a clear indicator of present motives and intention but no one is 100% Satan, except Satan, and a bad man could still have a truthful insight or made a truthful discovery.

    Though by no means is it IRRELEVANT and not requiring of our being discerning when considering the source of where information comes from.

    As the Word says,

    1 John 4:1-6

    Test the Spirits

    1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. 4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. 6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

    We shouldn’t believe EVERYTHING we hear just because someone says it is a message inspired by God…….and even for those dimissive of Christ because of His Orgin (John 1:46), I can sort of relate to why they did as they did. Nazareth was despised by Jews because Rome, which was hated by the Jews, had a army garrision there. ALSO, the people as a whole were known to have aloof attitudes/poor reputation in morals/religion……and, reasonably, that would’ve influenced Nathanel’s harsh comment.

    As you said,
    Quote:
    past behaviour is usually a clear indicator of present motives and intention

    …..and to a degree, prejudices can be something that can protect one from being decieved/harmed in a great way when it comes to information.

    Many ideas printed and taught aren’t true, and we as Christians should not be gullible, therefore requiring verification (and perhaps some kind of prejudice/pre-set view to go by) of every message we hear.

    If the message is truly godly/Of God (and I guess it could be argued, worth referencing/mentioning), it will be consistent with Christ’s teachings…..and moreover, the lifestyle of the one mentioning it and the fruit of their ministry will be in line with the Bible.

    Even Jesus, to a degree, had this mentality……

    For example,

    Remember John the Baptist in prision (Luke 7:18-23)?. John was confused because the reports he recieved about Jesus were unexpected and incomplete….and John’s doubts were natural, for even in being proclaimed by God to be the Messiah in front of many (John 3:13-17), Christ still had to be confirmed/proved worthy of the title.

    And despite the MYRIAD of TRUTHFUL THINGS CHRIST SAID, He didn’t rebuke John for doubting or even being unwilling to INITIALLY accept what He said as TRUTH. Instead, Jesus responded in a way that John would understand by explaining that he accomplished what the MESSIAH was supposed to do. He gave evidence—-obervable deeds, not theories—-that the prophets had said that the Messiah would do (Isaiah 6:1, Isaiah 35:5, and Isaiah 61:1).

    The physical proof helped John to better recognize who Jesus was….but unless John had that intial doubt/unwillingness, he possibly would’ve never reached that conclusion.

    For another example, Though for us today we realize that Christ was the Messiah/TRUTH, we have to acknowledge that in many people’s eyes his teachings were considered HERECTICAL and not of GOD/THE ORTHODOXY OF THE DAY (As they, thE Pharisees, considered to be orthodox), and naturally people should’ve been suspicious.

    However, he never condemened people for doubting Him, but rather welcomed those who were hesitant/questioned His claims/character as long as they were willing to follow through on what they discovered.

    When the JEWS WERe ready to stone Him, what did He say to their refusal to accept the TRUTHFUL CLAIMS He made? When people had doubts/didn’t automatically accept Him or His words, He didn’t just say “I’m Jesus. That’s reason, enough.”

    Rather, He said:

    46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me?

    (John 8:46-47)

    Jesus didn’t seem to be giving the indication that they should’ve accepted what He said as TRUTH, nor did He deny the importance of the source He came from……though the Jews never accepted His challenge to test Him, and they even if accepting it, they were unwilling to believe what they discovered to be true (as it ALMOST was with NATHANIEL, who probably would’ve missed the MESSIAH IF HE HAD STUCK TO HIS PREJUDICE WITHOUT INVESTIGATING FURTHER OR WENT PEOPLE’S STEROTYPES….JOHN 1:44-46)

    For another example, He even said point blank that people should’ve basically dismissed Him if His TEACHINGS DidN’T mirror the Character OF The Father in any kind of way…..and PERHAPS I’m NOW seeing it wrongly, but it seems that He was basically saying that whatever seemed to be TRUTH/HELPFUL should’ve been dismissed as well unless the FRUIT of HIS WORKS didn’t mirror THE FATHER or GODLINESS in some sort of way.

    John 10:37-38

    37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe[a] that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.”
    Footnotes:

    ……and so I guess that it may not ALWAYS be necessiraly wrong to dismiss something because of it’s SOURCE or to not consider accepting a TRUTHFUL STATEMENT at all until verification/approva and acknowledgementl of the ORGIN is given and the person feels secure on it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: