Comments - devotion RecentComments

January19 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Matthew:5:38-42 BUT I SAY UNTO YOU (RESIST NOT INJURY) - The common teaching all revolves around an eye for an eye; equal measure retribution for personal injury. Three men's actions are given for example, one smites your cheek, one sues, one impresses you into some form of civil or royal task/service. The fuller teaching is that equal in a mans mind is not always equal. Physical retaliation for instance is not always most prudent, exceeding the eye for eye when you yourself are judged/indebted is encouraged, as is going an extra mile when pressed into some unsought service; it doesn't always mean personal injury and that it has to be resisted. Various situations differ. Eye for an eye was meant to address self empowered self righteous lynch mobs, applying it to all situations leads to a sense of victimization and entitlement. It is not always warranted and often merely continues the cycle of excess. Discretion, discernment, valor, impartiality, searching the evidence/testimony, etc... are the better forms of justice. Personal retaliation outside of normal course of law must be thought out seriously. There is an example of Jesus being smited on the cheek kjv@John:18:22-23. It is the faith of our Lord that though He would suffer personal injury He would not allow His reactions no temper/impulse to it to destroy the work and time at hand. His eyes are fixed on the prize ahead and not the violations against Him. He is asking for us to be the same.

December29 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@John:20:24-31 BECAUSE THOU HAST SEEN - What would of happened with Thomas had Jesus not returned for Him? Thomas would have to come into his belief just like any other of us; by the testimony of others. The thing is that there are plenty of Thomas's out there that have their mind fixed that there is nothing in these testimonies to believe, that it is something that they will have to see and feel for themselves. Is Jesus obligated to return for them as well? The thing is that that don't really need to see and feel in so many other areas of their lives, why is it so important to them in this particular case? They will take another's word when it comes to politics. They will take another's word when it comes to economics, investments, history, future prediction, court testimony, science, global warming, etc... They will also swallow rumor and innuendo and false premise and distortion and murmuring and intimidation and unjust balance. Why is it not their intellectual creed in these cases? The point is that we try intellectually to be these things and to a certain respect we are, but the reality is that it is close to impossible to be this in the broadest respect. Truth is that we are inescapably made to rely upon the testimonies and opinions of others. Yes it is difficult and error prone and requires discernment; even trust. Yes others have their personal motives and view points and see the same event with dissimilar details. But for men like Thomas (well meaning though they think that they are) to say to the others "no, I won't allow your word even into my preliminary consideration" or "you all are liars" or "this is something so much different than what Jesus told us that would happen; I think you are all reaching" such is not much more than self inflating pride. So you won't believe until you see for yourself. Well where were you Thomas when the rest of us saw Him? How many times do you think Thomas that He has to come back when you just happen to show up? Is Jesus really obligated to meet you on your terms and with your objections? In a sense it is important for the over all record that there was dissent observed in the group, at least for us that long after would follow, but in Thomas's case it is merely a stroke of God's grace that he was given another opportunity to satisfy his hypocritical and prideful demands. What if Jesus had not come to any disciple? What if He had appeared to the common public or to Pilate and Ananias instead? Would that have changed the fact of our Lord's resurrection? The faith of our Lord is in the testimony of others testifying to the veracity of His word. He didn't even attempt to write it down Himself. He may be the only major world messianic figure that went about it this way. Such a defense would be more than proper in a court of law. Why would it not in the court of individual belief?