Month: July 2013

  • Who sinned?

     

    Joh 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

    Who sinned was the question and Jesus answered neither the blind man nor his parents.

    If we know no other verses nor continue reading then the simple answer is no one committed sin. But through continued reading and knowledge of other verses we can grasp a deeper understanding to what Jesus was saying.

    1Jn … for sin is the transgression of the law.

    Rom 4:15 … for where no law is, there is no transgression.

    Rom 5:13 … sin is not imputed when there is no law.

    Joh 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

     

    Luk 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

    Jesus did not say they were guilt free, only that they had not sinned. Through the previous verses we see that sin is the violation of a (known) law. But through nature we are shown ignorance does not protect the flesh, but we know according to the word that ignorance protects the spirit.

     

    Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

     

  • Innocent or guilty

    Lately I have been reading many more comments among blacks calling for riots if Mr. Zimmerman is found innocent. Will that persuade the ruling, I often wonder if the squeaky wheel does get the oil. The case was considered justifiable until it drew attention because of the race.

    Over the years in my opinion many injustices have occurred to lubricate the squeaky wheel, we shall see how it comes forth this time.

    The main witness for the prosecution had many discrepancies in her story. One witness testified that they saw Mr. Martin standing over Mr. Zimmerman beating him as Mr. Zimmerman yelled for help.

    The Sanford police did not charge Mr. Zimmerman in the killing, citing insufficient evidence and Florida’s expansive “stand your ground” law, but that decision provoked national protests. Six weeks later, after Ms. Corey was assigned to the case, Mr. Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder. By CARA BUCKLEY The New York Times
    Published: July 2, 2013

    O’Mara said Tuesday that if prosecutors start bringing up Zimmerman’s past, the defense will dig into Martin’s past, including fights. The judge had ruled previously that Martin’s past fights, drug use and school records couldn’t be mentioned in opening statements.

    BY MIKE SCHNEIDER AND KYLE HIGHTOWER 
    ASSOCIATED PRESS Jul 4, 4:35 AM EDT 

    My personal view is this, Mr. Zimmerman blinded by power did continue following Mr. Martin which was wrong but did it deserve being attacked over? Being followed aggravated the cocky young football player Mr. Martin. I believe Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman and was violently assaulting him, at which point Mr. Zimmerman shot Mr. Martin.