Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_04 @ nkjv@Mark:3 @ RandyP comments: It has been a decade or more since Jesus of Nazareth was crucified as the multitudes are first reading/listening to this first official gospel. The gospel is stating that within the first three chapters there was already a conspiracy between the Pharisee and Herodians to destroy Jesus. The reason for all now to see for the conspirators anger cannot be thought of as being anything other than His claim to forgive sins (which only God can do) and being Lord of the Sabbath and the Fast (which only God can be). Add to this that He has also already claimed to be the living fulfillment of Isaiah's messianic prophecy. There has been no talk by Jesus of any politically divisive ambitions. Now in an effort to destroy Jesus they are insinuating that He works for Satan. The topic of Jesus cannot be avoided by them because of the fact that He is performing so many miracles. They are being forced into a corner that they would rather not defend. This then is a case study of how men void of truth react to the true light. Mary had been told that her child would one day "reveal the intents of hearts of many"; this He is doing with little effort other than doing what good His Father is directing Him to do.

CR18Day_11 @ nkjv@Mark:8 @ RandyP comments: Ashamed of Jesus and His words, let's consider. An adulterous and sinful generation on the one hand, God incarnate preparing to obediently die and rise again for the remedy for our sins and adultery. Which is the greater? Can we deny that this is adulterous and sinful generation? I think not. Can we deny that Christ has died and risen now to redeem us from this our plight? Well it sounds logical but, many are either skeptical or don't see the need. Can we deny that He shall return in the glory of His Father with the holy angels? Well that is where it gets sticky because He hasn't yet and He hasn't for quite a long time. Is this what we are ashamed of? Consider that in the day people were expecting the Messiah to be a military/political leader who would immediately restore the nation Israel to world prominence, deliver them from Roman rule. When the critic harshly insisted, there was that to contend with. Today the public expectation is much different, it is to leave it alone to it's own beliefs, to not meddle or tattle or stand against or be preachy. All this talk of heaven and hell and personal accountability, talk of depravity and original guilt and original pollution, talk of truth and righteousness and holiness and virtue, this talk has no place in this time or generation. So when the critic harshly insists, there is that again to contend with. Is the shame that we have to contend for our beliefs at all? We are sensitive to how others feel about us. In a sense for all our religiosity and business we still yet do not percieve nor understand, our heart is still hardened, having eyes we do not see, having ears we do not hear, neither do we remember; at least not to the extent that we should. "Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me...". Ashamed? What does that mean? How might it present itself? Are we ashamed even if be in the least bit ashamed to deny ourselves and follow? Well then we certainly need to get to the bottom of that quickly.

CR18Day_16 @ nkjv@Mark:11 @ RandyP comments: Three major events are described in this chapter that people in and around Jerusalem should remember well even more than a decade later. If it hadn't happened as reported by Mark, we would have seen objections made. We don't; it was not even the Pharisee/Sadducee line of attack the decades following. It would be enough to remember because of the political/social fear/tension and talk of revolt that that would widely be talked/worried about.

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.