Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_19 @ nkjv@Genesis:35 @ RandyP comments: "Then God (Eloheem) went up from him in the place where He talked with him". The Apostle John quotes Jesus twice that "no man has seen God" and mentions it a third time in his first letter, yet there are multiple mentions of filter:OT LORD+AND+appeared in the Old Testament. Of interest we also have indication as here stated of the LORD going up afterwards, else coming down or just leaving. There seems to be no doubt nor unfamiliarity as to whom it is appearing in man's presence; no proof has to be given. Even when other angelic beings are beside Him His identity is obvious. There are a couple ways possible for us to interpret how this apparent contradiction can be resolved. The most prominent idea is that these are Christophanies (appearances of Christ before becoming human flesh); Christ is God but in viewable form. The second is what we see is as much of HIMSELF as God can show us without posing a danger to the lives of those HE is appearing to; a projection into our finite dimension or else avatar within a presentable form. Third HIS appearance is a vision HE plants within our mind. Fourth, we have the idea that an angel is making a substitutionary appearence for God. Some appearances are identified specifically as visions, others leave the impression that He is there (and is eating for instance), others are not as clear. These appearances are to be differentiated from the times when we are simply told that God or the LORD spoke saying... By all evidence God has been quite vocal and quite visable in these testaments.

CR18Day_20 @ nkjv@Mark:15 @ RandyP comments: In most present day judicial systems a man is innocent until proven guilty. At the very heart of that statement is the notion that an innocent man should not need to prove his innocence, rather it is on the prosecution to first prove his guilt. If and once the prosecution has done that then the man still would have the further right to fully defend his innocence. The natural instinct is to pile up the two mounds of evidence at the same time and measure which pile stands up taller. Such an instinct neglects the more judicious notion that the accused man is first innocent. There is a common baser instinct as well that the accused is first guilty and has to prove himself innocent else why would have been arrested and brought before this court anyway. It is precisely because the evidence can be misread, evidence can be trumped up or falsified, clearer evidence can be avoided, others can be lying. The evidence in this case is clearly not what convicts Jesus, Pilate could find no evidence. What convicts Jesus is public sentiment which has been roused up by his accusers. No defenders came to His legal side. No witnesses were called on His behalf. It was a largely a trial only brought before the court of His accusers afterwards brought before a whimpish political judge that cared more for his own waning popularity than for any form of human justice. In the end however, it is not ultimately about human justice, it is about divine justice, Christ suffers our form of justice in order to bring to us precisely that.