Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_06 @ nkjv@Mark:5 @ RandyP comments: It is doubtful that the residents in and around Gadarenes would have forgotten this event a decade and a half later when Mark formally recounted it. It is doubtful that the residents in and around Decapolis would have forgotten the formerly possessed man's testimony. Any one from anywhere else at that time doubting Marks account could easily have gone to either region and asked the residents. It is likely that the story was still widely known even there in Jerusalem. Maybe as time went by certain details would be passed down differently by the locals, the story might have morphed into something barely resembling what the Apostles recollected, but still decades later the evidence of the event described having happened would have been compelling.

CR18Day_06 @ nkjv@Mark:5 @ RandyP comments: I find it interesting that the legion of demons did not want Jesus to do a certain thing, begged for something other, and that Jesus "gave permission(nkjv)/gave them leave(kjv+rsv+asv)". For the poor man the result is just the same; he is freed from torment. For the demons they don't have to look for another host to inhabit; they are sent into the herd of swine (?did they know that the swine were going to drown - probably not?). For Jesus there is the added advantage that the owners of these swine (forbidden to eat by Jews) would be angry; they and the city's residents would be coming after Him in fear pleading that He leave their coast. Everyone seems to win here except for the owners and residents who would be recounting this fearful event for decades to come. The only question I have is did the demons die with the swine or are they still down there trapped in their carcass? or? Perhaps that is the question that the locals had as well.

CR18Day_19 @ nkjv@Genesis:37 @ RandyP comments: "But when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him and could not speak peaceably to him". Was Joseph set up by Jacob's outwardly expression of love to suffer what he later suffered at the hands of his brothers? I have heard many sermons on Father's Day say as much. I think it better to say rather that the brother's propensity towards utter hatred is the prominent consideration. A father cannot always anticipate how his children are going to react. A father cannot always contain his love for one particular child for the sake of those children he certainly loves but not as easily. A father may not even be aware of there being a problem unless the wife or else one of the other children make him aware of it. A father cannot be held responsible for the way his other children react to an outward expression of love especially when it comes to them either leaving as dead or selling that more beloved child into slavery. That occurrence is not the result of child rearing, that occurrence is a result of some very ungodly anger deeply rooted among the brethren. Later on it will be said by Joseph "what you meant toward me for evil" meaning Joseph did not blame Jacob, no, the brothers were directly responsible for this. But, even then he said "God meant it for good". God did not cause this, God simply allowed it to happen so that HIS good might restored (we'll explore that further as the story is recounted). Jacob's love did not cause this. Hatred caused this and surely that hatred existed long before there was a multi-colored coat weaved and given by one God fearing and loving man. Perhaps these preachers should not be so hard on Jacob on a day meant to honor our many Jacob like fathers.