Comments - devotion RecentComments

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.

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.

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?