Comments - devotion RecentComments

January11 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Matthew:4:23-25 GOING ALL ABOUT - Three important parts to Jesus' early ministry, teaching (instructing), preaching (exhort reproof convince) the gospel of the kingdom, healing (taking from) all manner of sickness/disease. These three went hand in hand. Word of Him spread throughout Syria particularly because of His work with a diversity of untreatable diseases and torments. Of these torments there is listed a descending order, the possessed, the lunatic (moon struck or moon cycled), palsied (epileptic). People from the region packed in tight around him to follow. Word traveled in the form of rumor and innuendo as much as by testimony no doubt faster and deeper than a hundred thousand watt radio antenna would today. In modern social media terms the word went viral reaching even to the hard hearts in Jerusalem. Today we have faith in broadcast mediums reaching vast masses. Jesus had the faith of one on one contact; what you see the Father doing, that you do.

June17 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Mark:12:1-12 GIVE THE VINEYARD UNTO OTHERS - The Sanhedrin knew that He had spoken of them, therefore, the first piece of the puzzle is in place; Sanhedrin = Husbandmen. We are then to gather that they knew He (Jesus) was the heir. Why did they seek to kill Him even after He said they did in fact cast the son out and kill Him? So that the vineyard would be theirs. But what about all the reports of the Prophets like kjv@Isaiah:53 , the tender plant growing before Him, the speechless lamb led to slaughter, cut off from the land of the living who ends up receiving the portion and dividing the spoils? This is all a cunningly devised fable to them. It is finally going to be their vineyard now, no more talk of an heir coming to repossess it. Only one thing yet remained between them and their stolen prize; the immediate reaction of the people still supporting Jesus and the rumors of conspiracy that would circulate for the years to come if not properly handled. What was needed was a way to spin present and future perceptions in one swoop; they chose to put Jesus through a national trial. Jesus knows this from the many prophecies, so He replants another old prophecy of the "chief cornerstone" into the public's mind to counter the spin that they are planning for the history books (He states it as if it is past tense). The vineyard long has referred to Israel by the scriptures Old and New. The husbandmen of that time were destroyed in 70 AD and the vineyard ever since have been given to assorted others; proof of this parable/prophecy being further fulfilled. Though the fruit of the vineyard can not be pressed at this time the supposition of self ownership and pretended husbandry is carried on through the traditions of the Jewish Orthodoxy. The "cornerstone" seed yet remains, the marvel to be completed upon His next coming. The faith of our Lord is that His counter measures will stick. We know of a great many Gentiles that hold true to the keeping and remembrance of the "Cornerstone" in Israel's temporary absence, and some Messianic Jews. Israel's eyes will soon be re-opened, perhaps even by the re-opening of this combination parable/prophecy/historical testimony.

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?