January28 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Matthew:7:13-14 NARROW - The narrow mind today is much frowned upon. The modern mind is conceded enough to think that anywhere it goes that there is something there for it, that a narrow mind is missing out on what ever it is that is there. What if what is there is destruction? What is the narrow mind missing out on? Many consider Jesus to be an excellent teacher on most everything but this one point. What if Jesus is not speaking from opinion but from observable fact? One would ask 'Observable from whose standpoint'? From the incarnate Son of God's! Are open minds rather too narrow to consider that the Son of God would not see it as such? To consider that He made it to be so with reason?
April17 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Matthew:26:57-68 THOU HAST SAID - Imagine in a modern day court setting the judge (not the prosecutor) stacking the jury against the accused, gathering as many false witnesses as it would take, disallowing testimony for the defense, and forcing the accused into self incrementation. There would be grounds for a mistrial would there not? If Jesus is Messiah (there is evidence) would it be blasphemy for Messiah to state the obvious fact that soon the roles of judge would be reversed and He would be judging them? The chief prosecutor (who was also the judge) did not prove that Jesus was not Messiah, did not even try, for his judgement was predetermined (despised and rejected, esteemed not) and guilt was merely implied. There would be quiet a case for any defense attorney to use in the extradition proceedings to Roman authorities up to and including the physical mistreatment of the defendant if Jesus so chose. Jesus did not pursue such a course as prophesied by Isaiah, like a sheep drawn by her shearers He kept silent. There will be a proper judgement however of these proceedings and these men when the time is right. Those that smote him will be named and by the judgement by which they judged they likely could be judged as well. How is this relevant to us today? We too hold ourselves as judge and jury and prosecutor, the evidence we allow and disallow is based upon a predetermined implication of guilt. Jesus and the followers of Jesus are judged by this standard everyday and night in the high palace of public and civic opinion. The faith of our Lord is not in the legal rights He Himself has because He has forgone any such rights as sacrificial lamb. It is not in this worlds legal system (though in a negative sense it is). It is not in Peter and John outside gathering up the troops or moving legal mountains into the sea by faith. It is in His Father's plan and the report of the prophets. So must our's.
April20 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Matthew:27:11-26 WHETHER OF THE TWAIN - One man washes his hands of the blood guilt and the others pour it on to their heads of themselves and their children. Blood by both is made lite of. One cannot be innocent of the blood simply by washing their hands of the matter. The fact is that matters were poorly and unjustly handled in the first place. Pilate proved coward to the pressures of the Sanhedrin. Others cannot take such minute opinion of any man's life so as to not guarantee a safe and judicious proceedings, so as to not be driven by impulse or shrewd coercion. After all Jesus had done to reveal the sinful hypocrisy and false teaching and spiritual callous blindness of the Pharisees/the Sadducee/the Scribes the make up the Sanhedrin, for the general public to be so easily intimidated and manipulated is a sin equal to that of Judas even if this had not been Christ. What then of the evidences in favor, the many and daily healings, the exorcisms, the wondrous and picturesque sermons, the miracles, the possible ties to long held prophecy, the hope of Israel? Were these possibilities no factor to them at all? The blood stains of guilt cannot be washed away. The price of guilt cannot be negotiated by the guilty parties involved. Jesus' blood is meant to redeem but, if it is not accepted as such it becomes a terrible pronouncement of guilt; guilt then, guilt today. There is a notorious thief that is given amnesty by us even at this hour. He is the embodiment of our being so easily turned and manipulated and used as a driving wedge between justice and those that must judge. Perhaps the greatest revelation of our hearts by Jesus was taught without a word. The faith of our Lord is not in the present but, in the future. It is a future ripped free from the clutches of man's continuous evil imagination and heart that is deceptive above all else. It may be a good time to review kjv@Proverbs:1:20-33 in consideration of this particular multitude and then ours.
June4 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Mark:9:33-37 WHOSOEVER SHALL - A contrast in objective is drawn by our Lord: obtaining/deserving rank and receiving a child in Christs name. Two unrelated frames of mind involved. We serve Christ by serving others. The child is not representative of age and innocence as much as helplessness and lowly stature. Serve this person and you have served Christ, serve Christ and you have served God the Father. Serve your opinion of yourself even in helping the same child and you are still serving your opinion of yourself. The child, the helpless, the lowly are best served when received in Christs name thus serving our mutual Father. One's opinion of self and one's position butts up against other like opinions causing dispute and puts a person above or below receiving another and/or creates a ranked system of tiered implementation/execution. Jesus asks but, they hold their peace. It may be embarrassing for them to be caught red handed thinking this way; not embarrassed enough moving forward however to discontinue this line of rationale. The faith of our Lord speaks to us in real to life pictures. While others can imagine this being that or this, He wraps His arms around the unexpected answer, the one we would have never come to from our delusion. Two men, two frames of perspective/objective can receive and serve a child. Which one in doing so faithfully serves child and God? Jesus must address this ill immediately (whether they want to discuss it or not) as soon as it pops up and He must address it throughout His earthly ministry. He must address it immediately even today.
June7 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Mark:10:1-12 BUT FROM THE BEGINNING - This is a planned attack by the Pharisees. Somewhere along the way they have counseled together, decided, put out talking point directives to all that would come in contact with Jesus. These may be hired guns as well, men that are directed to seek out and trip up Jesus. It is obvious by what they are going after and the number of times that they have posed the same type questions that they believe that this is their best play. How would this be a no way out for Jesus? Is there really such unanimity amongst the sects regarding divorce and the law that all would disagree with Jesus' analysis? No, there is such hardened inflamed public sentiment about anything restricting to their personal freedoms and desires. The Pharisee have a less restrictive view of divorce and they want to make use of that to turn public opinion against Jesus and toward themselves. The same trick may have been used against John the Baptist. He told them what the law really meant, called them vipers to their face, and got in fatal trouble with the Herods for it. Why not try the same? Essentially, the hardness of the Pharisees is being used to stir or play the hardness of the people against the correct interpretation of the Law boxing Jesus into a corner. This is a much bigger test/temptation for Jesus that we today perceive. Jesus instead goes back to the beginning intention, Man, Woman, in God one flesh; hard to argue against that. If it were not for the hardness of a couples heart one or both toward the things of God they would have remained such. Now they make living together a living hell and their hearts harden all the more. If allowance had not been made in these cases the hardened would lash out all the more and take society down with them. The Law then can be used in at least two opposing ways, one as a warning against hardness or two as an easy justification for divorce. Jesus does not call them a broad of vipers, but, does make it known that the hardness of couples to the designs of God and hardness of the religious towards the true intents of the Law were not going to box Him into a place that truth can't still get out. The faith of our Lord is in the spirit of the Law as the spirit addresses the hardness of mankind complete. Without the Law we would not know our sin, knowing our sin makes us to resist and to sin all the more. Only being one with God through Jesus Christ makes us one flesh man to women and one with the spirit and design of all things.
June18 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Mark:12:13-17 RENDER TO GOD - The attempt must be to either tag Jesus with or separate Jesus from the radical political elements who see Caesar as a captor and oppressor over Israel, that see a Messiah as winning the nation back. A simple understated question at this point contains a field of land mines to navigate; people on both sides of the issues have their opinions at stake. Jesus may have somewhat conceded to their objective by entertaining their approach instead focusing on the bigger issue of what for them has not been rendered to God. He knows that they are withholding and trying to steal away what is rightfully Gods. They hold His temple, His city, His nation, His people captive and soon will hold Him prisoner as well. While their question is intended for the ears of all that are listening in, His answer is directed to these assassin's hearts. If they were to give God what is rightfully His they would first have to give reverence by repenting from their schemes and devices. How much more is that than the penny with Caesars inscription? The faith of our Lord is that while there may not be an answer to their question that will change the path to His cross, His cross can change the path of their question. His verbal reply while well principled may not be what they marvel at as much as His commitment to the road He is on.
August21 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Luke:9:51-62 WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YE ARE OF - Have you ever stopped to wonder what manner of spirit you are of? John has two instances back to back where he has felt that he was in the right, forbidding a non-follower from casting out devils and calling for fire upon the Samaritan village dissing Jesus. Within the group he may have voiced the majority opinion. Was there anyone other than Jesus that was going to challenge John's perspective? He was after all looking after his master? It is likely that there are few if any in our own circles today that would discern enough to challenge our perspective as well. How would we know what manner of spirit we are of? As right as John is, as protective of his master as he is, as in the majority this "son of thunder is", as loved as this "beloved" is, it is not from the Holy Spirit that his spirit is operating from. Peter has likewise been called out on this as well. Without clear discernment the borders between spirits the human mind is likely to justify/rationalize it's way to wherever it intended originally. Without discernment from those holding us in their confidence how else can the question of manner be asked? There are certainly stiff and sharp lessons a disciple must endure on his road through sanctification. Just as we must consider the immediacy and personal price associated, we must consider the manner of spirit we proceed from. The faith of our Lord is not in discouraging these men from their holy ambition, it is to steer them toward a clearer road of spiritual discernment. We know what manner of spirit we are from; one likely to bend perceptions it's own direction. James and John would make it through this and other challenges. It is likely that these others did as well (by our Lord's guidance).
October30 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@John:3:1-21 GOD SO LOVED - God so loved the world.. Which world? The world that is or the world to come? If it takes this to get to that then the two are inseparable, He loves "The" world. Imagine God when laying out His plan foresaw a future so grand and glorious, communion so rich and wondrous with all angelic and human creation that He knew it would be worth giving the life of His only begotten Son for. Knowing that it meant a time detached and a temporary world that He would have to condemn, but through His Son He would be able to redeem, that all of this would be what brought us all of that which He foresaw. Imagine us hating what He foresaw, what He foretold, what He afore did. Imagine us choosing to continue even if eternally in this condemnation rather than accept entrance into that which God foresaw and so loved. Why would we do that? So that our deeds be not reproofed? How much then do our deeds mean to us? It is evident that God so loves this present world, but not then everything about it. He has given us allowance where the full consequence of our choice is not yet, a time to sort through this invitation. Does He love that many will instead perish? Surely it is upsetting. They might feel it to be His moral quandary having such a high opinion of themselves. It is actually a quandary that they have placed upon themselves for with all sincerity and simplicity He has given them awareness and option out. Jesus reminds Nicodemus of the Brass Serpent of Moses, a time when fiery vipers struck at all of Israel as a whole and only those that looked upon the risen emblem of their Messiah were saved. Can it be any different for the world of all people as it likewise clings to it's sin and rebellion? There is so much that God keeps us from that are of our own consequence, so much that He cannot forever defend us from or support. Does it mean that He doesn't love that world? No it means that the option that He had given them was not ever taken. The scripture says "choose you this day life or death". How hard of a decision can that be if He so loves the world of the living and what that living will be that He gives the life of His only begotten Son to redeem it? That world to come must really be something worth deserting our evil deeds for. The faith of our Lord is in the love of His Father and what His Father sees as being our ultimate destination within that love. Is our faith?
December19 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@John:18:19-24 WHY ASKETH THOU - How do a few powerful elite (but not powerful enough to do this deed on their own) sway the perception and support of enough others to get this job done? Think of those others as the jury. The prosecution's effort here is intended to grab the focus of the jury away from anything Jesus might be defending Himself by. The officer appears offended by the defendant's answer with the purpose of setting a definite tone of authority and gamesmanship by the defendant for the room fully in mind. Whether he was told to do this or whether he just felt it necessary we do not know; I believe it though to be staged. The high priest is seeking to set a similar tone releasing into the room air the scent that Jesus is being secretive for the blood hounds to sniff without having to prove it. Irregardless of any answer, the jury (many of the same) is left with the sense of Jesus disrespectfully toying with authority and that authority knows something that Jesus would rather hold back. It is all an act, but very effective in increments. One does not break the will at first, but bends it. Knowing that this ploy is in place our Lord's comments are as they should be, essentially "what is your intention in asking me that". Jesus is not going to defend Himself here. He has already proved Himself on a much bigger stage. His silence instead will be proof against intents and methods of His accusers. The trial is much the same in our age. His accusers are setting the stage for the jury by filling the air with nebulous scents; no need for proofs (less effective). The scent of holding something threatening back, the ora of descent and rebelion, the air of war mongering and brainwashing and alterior motive, the tinge of stirring crowds into fanaticism, all thrown out not to be answered (how could we) but to set the tone and put the adherent on the defensive. Where then is the Lord's defense? Is it really in us becoming more vocal and defensive? Or is it in us keeping true to what He has been teaching and commanding all along? Is not our love and fruitfulness in the knowledge of Him His best defense? The faith of our Lord is in the work that He has already been doing, it is in knowing from this initial work what in the future will be done. His faith is not in the trial or the defense or the court of corruptible opinion, it is in the righteousness of His Father. So must ours! Not everyone else is an accuser, they may simply be the jury. They should be aware of the tactic just 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?
![[pBiblx2]](/img/menu.png)
![[pBiblx2]](/img/pbiblx2_logo3.png){kind=logo}