Comments - devotion RecentComments

August8 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Luke:7:36-50 SOMEWHAT TO SAY - The host of this event apparently did no see Jesus as a sinner. Pharisees as I understand were very much wanting Israel to return to its former glory becoming once again sovereign. They (at least one of them) are still toying with the idea that this Jesus may become if properly swayed this type of messiah. The event must have been open to the public or at least to those Jesus would chose to bring along and thus this woman. The thrust of the parable is that we are all sinners and that regardless of how sinful any of us perceive ourselves to be there is not one dime we can offer to our redemption. The issue is not how much we owe it is that there is nothing we have that can pay that debt. This would be important to tell such a Pharisee because he believes that being a Pharisee is more than enough when in fact like everything else we could offer payment received yet remains zero pence. The debt instead is forgiven by the creditor, the sins of both are forgiven, payment for possession will soon be accomplished in Jesus at the cross, yet only the one is accepting of the transaction that has been made. The host stumbles over whether Jesus has the authority to forgive sins. Though he'd answered correctly his understanding of the parable did not include Jesus as being the creditor. The faith of our Lord is by being a triune member of the Godhead He can act and speak as representative for the other members and at the same time His having become flesh and made to pay for our complete redemption He is also the very transaction. How is it that the debt can be forgiven and still the creditor has to pay for the repossession? Ask yourself, what good is it to forgive when the forgiven remain in bondage to another?

December21 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@John:18:28-40 TO THIS END - Apparently when you are breaking your own law by having a trial at night and coming to a judgment of condemnation in the same day it is important that you not break your own traditions of not dirtying your hands by going into a Gentile's house; it makes it all better. Apparently if you yourself do not have legal power to perform capital punishment it is okay to take him to someone that does; it is all right. John doesn't go into the false evidence and witness that the Sanhedrin itself trumped up, but apparently it too is okay as long as you don't sully your hands and your image by expressing concern over not missing the closing hours of the paschal festival. Aren't you glad that they thought this all through and got it to where they could murder God's Son without breaking their ceremonial traditions? Why should Pilate entertain this motion? Because they wouldn't have brought him had He not been what they said he was; you can take their word on that. Oh so Pilate doesn't find anything wrong with the man, but it is okay to offer him in a trade for a seditious robber? Did that come out of left field or what? Is it article ?#$& that says that it is lawful to trade an innocent man for a convict tried by Roman law if the Jews insist? What business does Rome have with a man who won't tell you directly that he is a king, with no army, with no intent of removing anyone from their throne, who has gone out of his way on several occasions not to present himself to the public as someone who would? Some would say that Pilate felt for Jesus but cowarded to the pressure of the Jews. WHat? Pilate (who has been tyrannical and utterly vicious to the Jews as recently as a few months ago on the temple stairs) and the Sanhedrin suddenly being buddy buddy should alert us to something politically motivated happening here in a big way. They are both trying to present themselves to the public (and to history) as having clean hands. Don't riot against me Jerusalem for well I pretended not to want to be involved in this when most vehemently I did. Don't riot against us thousands of followers because we did not kill Jesus, Jesus killed Himself by what He said to Pilate. This is why all the detail is given to public perception. Little did they know that it was going to be written about. A few weeks and all this messiness would be done with, so they thought. It was written in a time span where if the written testimony that we have was false that the many witnesses could have fought back, we would have historical evidence that these misrepresentations had been vigorously disputed.Truth is that Rome didn't think much of this little incident until it had stirred the people so that they had to destroy the Temple, burn the records and ransack the city a few decades latter. What we do have is our Apostles talking about it quite openly to the public in a tone that everyone else knew about it and accepted it; many were convicted by it. The words here of Jesus then take on deeper meaning when He says that He came into this world to "bare witness unto the truth" and everyone that is "of the truth" heareth His voice. Truth is not the perception portrayed of washing ones hands of the matter, nor is it of making it back to the festival in time, truth is why it is you feel the need to trip all over yourself and the law on the way to portraying yourself as innocent of a most guilty matter.Truth is proving man his nature so that then you can show them God's. The faith of our Lord remember is that this is all in the Father's hands. No it is not right what they are doing, but what else could be expected. How does this ever change unless the Son of God suffers this wrong and takes it in His flesh to the grave along with every other wrong so that He might raise up a people free of it's corruption. Born into to bare wittness, to this end completed.