Comments - devotion RecentComments

December21 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@John:18:28-40 TO THIS END - Apparently when you are breaking your own law by having a trial at night and coming to a judgment of condemnation in the same day it is important that you not break your own traditions of not dirtying your hands by going into a Gentile's house; it makes it all better. Apparently if you yourself do not have legal power to perform capital punishment it is okay to take him to someone that does; it is all right. John doesn't go into the false evidence and witness that the Sanhedrin itself trumped up, but apparently it too is okay as long as you don't sully your hands and your image by expressing concern over not missing the closing hours of the paschal festival. Aren't you glad that they thought this all through and got it to where they could murder God's Son without breaking their ceremonial traditions? Why should Pilate entertain this motion? Because they wouldn't have brought him had He not been what they said he was; you can take their word on that. Oh so Pilate doesn't find anything wrong with the man, but it is okay to offer him in a trade for a seditious robber? Did that come out of left field or what? Is it article ?#$& that says that it is lawful to trade an innocent man for a convict tried by Roman law if the Jews insist? What business does Rome have with a man who won't tell you directly that he is a king, with no army, with no intent of removing anyone from their throne, who has gone out of his way on several occasions not to present himself to the public as someone who would? Some would say that Pilate felt for Jesus but cowarded to the pressure of the Jews. WHat? Pilate (who has been tyrannical and utterly vicious to the Jews as recently as a few months ago on the temple stairs) and the Sanhedrin suddenly being buddy buddy should alert us to something politically motivated happening here in a big way. They are both trying to present themselves to the public (and to history) as having clean hands. Don't riot against me Jerusalem for well I pretended not to want to be involved in this when most vehemently I did. Don't riot against us thousands of followers because we did not kill Jesus, Jesus killed Himself by what He said to Pilate. This is why all the detail is given to public perception. Little did they know that it was going to be written about. A few weeks and all this messiness would be done with, so they thought. It was written in a time span where if the written testimony that we have was false that the many witnesses could have fought back, we would have historical evidence that these misrepresentations had been vigorously disputed.Truth is that Rome didn't think much of this little incident until it had stirred the people so that they had to destroy the Temple, burn the records and ransack the city a few decades latter. What we do have is our Apostles talking about it quite openly to the public in a tone that everyone else knew about it and accepted it; many were convicted by it. The words here of Jesus then take on deeper meaning when He says that He came into this world to "bare witness unto the truth" and everyone that is "of the truth" heareth His voice. Truth is not the perception portrayed of washing ones hands of the matter, nor is it of making it back to the festival in time, truth is why it is you feel the need to trip all over yourself and the law on the way to portraying yourself as innocent of a most guilty matter.Truth is proving man his nature so that then you can show them God's. The faith of our Lord remember is that this is all in the Father's hands. No it is not right what they are doing, but what else could be expected. How does this ever change unless the Son of God suffers this wrong and takes it in His flesh to the grave along with every other wrong so that He might raise up a people free of it's corruption. Born into to bare wittness, to this end completed.

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?