Muller
didn’t volunteer a darned thing as far as new information we didn’t already
know. He would not be “tricked” into
reading from the report and having clips people could use on the news. Getting any answer from him was like pulling
teeth because he kept saying “I’m not here to talk about that” or “that’s
outside my domain”. He would not even
admit that the reason why charges weren’t filed against Trump is because a
court in 1974 said you couldn’t indict a sitting president. The best we got from him was that a president
could be indicted after he left office.
Trump got on the air seven minutes before two and crowed like a rooster
about what a great day this was for the Republican party and America. The chances of impeachment now are less than
zero. Basically Trump wanted the
democrats to fold their hands and abandon any thoughts about winning the
election next year. Muller spoke before
two committees for seven hours from about twenty to six to twenty to one. All the commentators could say is how tired
Muller was and how he’s seventy-five years old and he’s retired and all. Even Trump said that Muller’s performance was
a bad one. I made a lot of mental notes
as the interview was in progress but unfortunately I didn’t write anything
down. There was a lot of minutia that
could be explored. The silver lining of
the thing was that the Republicans were also frustrated in their attempts to
put words in Muller’s mouth. They argued
that a prosecutor’s job is to lodge charges and if you don’t issue indictments
then you have no business doing a report on things that were NOT charged. This is a difficult argument to best. But all in all I think the democrats’
decision to even have Muller on did their side more harm than good. As if by conspiracy the sessions were very
tedious to listen to. I would only say
that the news people did manage to salvage a few interesting clips. Muller may have sacrificed and served his country in time of need but he sure as hell didn't serve the Democratic Party when they really needed him.
Let’s
talk about the reports of the resurrection of Jesus in the Bible. Let’s bring forth examples old and new. Here’s an old one. Three women were on their way to the tomb and
asked themselves on the way there, “But who will roll away the stone”? This is a good question and any other group
of women would say, “We need to go back and bring a man with us and get a
crowbar and the wedging tools we’ll need”. Keep in mind it was really early in the morning and the likelyhood of seeing someone at the grave site was very unlikely. Why were they even on their way to the tomb this Sunday morning. Supposedly to bring spices to put on the
body. But in fact it says in John that
this preparation for burial had already taken plate late Friday afternoon. It would have been taboo in that culture to
disturb a dead body. The entire trip
makes no sense. We then have seemingly
endless reports about “seeing the gardener” at the tomb. Or- - - then it’s the gardener and all of a
sudden it’s Jesus. Or they are told “Jesus
is not here” and a minute later he shows up.
Or they are told "Jesus is not here. Go to Galilee and you will see him there”
when another gospel says that whatever you do “Stay in the city of
Jerusalem. In the book of John it ends
with the disciples eating fish that they had just caught on the lake of
Galilee. There is no thought about Pentacost
or the outpouring of the Holy Spirit back in Jerusalem. Here are a couple of brand new examples for
you to ponder. It was said in getting a
replacement for Judas, who betrayed Jesus, that he must be a member of the
original group of 120 men and that “He
must have been with our group all along”.
The trouble with this one is that ALL of the disciples betrayed him on
Maundy Thursday. There is no one who
would stand with him. So by that line of
reasoning there would be no candidate qualified to take Judas’ place. Finally I’d like you to chew on this
one. When Peter got up and made a speech
on Pentacost, he talked about the resurrection and Jesus sitting on the right
hand of the Father and all. But at no
time did he make reference to Jesus ascending to heaven in a cloud at the Mount
of Olives. The question is that if
hundreds or perhaps thousands of people saw this event, why was it even
necessary for God to generate a whirling
wind and tongues to get peoples’ attention at Pentacost? It would seem as though the whole “Gospel”
thing would have been kicked off ten days previously when there would be
hundreds or more of mini-gospels running around talking about the man who
ascended into the clouds. Or when St Peter was going on and on about how "Sinful men killed the prince of life" how much better if Jesus had held out just ten days longer Peter could have introduced a live Jesus right there to the crowd. But then we
have a reference in John about Jesus saying to his chosen “And now I am no more
in the world”. What did Jesus mean by
that? Was his resurrection just a
spiritual thing as many maintain? It
would seem as best the resurrection was a highly secret thing not seen by just
anybody. It seems that nobody but the
elect ever witnessed this at all. This
would conform to Isaiah 53 when it says that Jesus was reckoned as dead by his
own generation. If he was reckoned as
dead, then how could ANYBODY witness his appearance?
No comments:
Post a Comment