Well if it's an order from the main office I don't see how he can hold it against you. Maybe in the final analysis it comes down to who'd buy Him a beer.
Totally! I mean, if you want to post 1 little verse that comes straight out of the middle of an entire chapter, it is easy to assume that it is contradicting. You have to take the whole Bible into consideration... not just 2 little verses that appear to contradict eachother on the surface. Dig a little deeper, and you will find that the Bible never contradicts itself.
Contradictions are endemic to christianity, such as this ~ the Book of Enoch that was written circa 150-120 BC and subsequently hidden amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. Funny that the christian church condemned the book from Constantine onward, yet verses contained in Enoch are identical to NT verses such as Enoch chapter 6 vs 9 "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" (Matt 5:5); Enoch 39 vs4 "In my father's house there are many rooms" (John 14:2); Enoch 93:7 "Woe to you that are rich" (Mk). Also the term "Son of man" is an on-going referential term throughout Enoch. All of which simply means that the book of Enoch, which pre-dates christian 'authorship' by circa 200 - 300 years was plagiarised by the the known christian liar Eusebius and incorporated into the NT. The so-called "Jesus" never uttered such words.
So you are advocating that one not believe anything because one is not sure of its authorship. I wonder then how you can have confidence in what has been written to the contrary. You obviously accept it. Why did you accept it? The mind has a penchant for readily accepting what it wants to accept. How else can one explain whatever it decides to accept without question? Do you use this same discriminating mind to question everything else that is taught you and which you have read? Probably not. http://reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/thebookofenoch.htm I find it amazing that you can assert that "Jesus never uttered such words". If the Book of Enoch had been known to him, and if even the masses had read them, then he could have been quoting Enoch, just as other scriptures were quoted. So again I ask, do you accept the teachings of Math, Science, History and Literature without a questioning mind? If you read a book which says that Jesus was married or that he didn't die on the cross or that there was no resurrection, do you accept it willingly? I've read a book ("The Biggest Secret," David Icke) which says that Darwin never wrote "Origins of the Species," that the original idea came from Erasmus Darwin who wrote "Zoonomia" in 1794, as part of a secret society, the Lunar Society, subset of the Royal Society, which was controlled by the FreeMasons, Masons, Rosicrucians, et. al. (Knights Templar, Illuminati, Priory of Sion, Invisible College, etc.) In another book, "...and the truth shall set you free," Icke says that Darwin lifted the ideas from Herbert Spencer, who also lifted it from someone else. Supposedly Darwin repented years later, that he changed his mind to a belief in God, but his book took on an onus of its own. Do I readily believe it? No. But I wouldn't mind reading Ian T. Taylor's book, "In the Minds of Men - Darwin and the New World Order," TFE Publishing, Toronto, Canada, 1984. Here's a refutation: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/taylor.html My emphasis. If old theories are obsolete, at the time they were accepted as truth. How then can you accept what is now taught as truth? If it is proved to be false tomorrow then it is false today. Why then defend such a position? At best you can insert a disclaimer, that what you believe today is subject to revision. That disclaimer will not mitigate your emotionalism, though. A refutation to the refutation: http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_it_01.asp So, who's one to believe? Attacking the authorship of Icke won't work though, as he even attacks Laurance Gardner ("Genesis of the Grail Kings," Bloodline of the Holy Grail") and Ralph Ellis ("Jesus: Last of the Pharaohs"). It's like reading a book by someone who says that he is enlightened attacking others that also say that they are enlightened, like U.G. Krisnamurti attacking Jeddu Krishnamurti or Osho attacking J. Krishnamurti, etc. The best example I can give is where Von Daniken says that Jesus never existed in one book and then quoting him in another of his books. Did he change his mind or does the human mind accept both or either, according to what they want to believe? You do pose a valid conundrum, though: how can anyone believe anything?
Nice post ~ providing you want the issue at hand manipulatively circumvented. Jesus and christianity are claimed as unique, yet the scripts in question not only predated the supposed "jesus", but they were rejected by christain authority as "pagan". So in order to justify the felonious nature of christianity, you assume that the supposed "jesus" may or might cite quotations that are of Pagan origin, and presumedly such pagan texts are satanic. So now you will have the presumed "jesus" citing satan from texts that christianity rejects because they are not the word of god! Are you really serious?? Are you aware of the psychological disorder kanown as Cognitive Dissonance? And the issue is authorship and authenticity for those who miss it or design to miss it ~ pre-christian (pagan) BC writings are now found in the bible and are spuriously given credence via false (lying) claims of christian authorship. That such deceiptful practices are not condemned but rationalized by such as above quoted is nothing short of disgusting, though typically christian.