Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_11 @ nkjv@Mark:8 @ RandyP comments: Four thousand men, probably about that number again in women and kids conservatively. How many of those who saw this miracle of the loaves were still alive at the wider publication of Mark's gospel a decade and a half later? Quite a few of them; especially of the kids. How many others did each of these men women and children tell that would know of this event second hand or third hand and still be living? Conservatively hundreds of thousands, half or more still living. How many critics of that day refuted Mark's written account or questioned the numbers? We do not know of any. Again, how many witnesses at the feeding of the five thousand men plus women and children? How many other people did they tell? How many were living to later support Mark's gospel? How many critics refuted that additional multitudes' claims? Again the blind man in Bethsaida; what kind of numbers are we talking about there? Was the blind man still alive? What did he say about this? Were those all important surviving witnesses nearby? Could anyone in Bethsaida still confirm this? Unfortunately you see, this logical line of critical inquiry was not the line of attack that the critics then engaged in (leading us to believe that they knew it would be inaffective to their defence). Their means of countering Mark was to slander and persecute and physically compel believers to blaspheme the faith, else to argue against it on mere philosophical grounds. The history here says more than just Mark's written words.

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.