Thursday, July 1, 2010

299: Jesus Begins the Zombie Apocalypse

Luke 6-7
"Then he went up and touched the coffin, and those carrying it stood still. He said, 'Young man, I say to you, get up!' The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother." - Luke 7:14-15

Chapter 6 is largely stories we've already heard. This includes Jesus changing the sabbath laws (even though he said he wouldn't in Matthew), naming his 12 apostles, blessing and woeing (blessed are the poor, woe to the rich, etc.), telling us to love our enemies, and telling us not to judge others.

In the section Jesus tells us not to judge others he makes us a lot of promises. He says that if we don't judge, we won't be judged, and if we don't condemn we won't be condemned, etc. I don't think I have to tell anyone this, but that's just not the case. I could be a perfectly good person and still have terrible things done to me. This is a lot like Jesus's assertion that anything asked for in his name would be given to us. I still haven't gotten my million dollars.

At the beginning of chapter 7 we again hear about the centurion who asks Jesus to heal his servant. The story is again out of order, and this time the centurion, instead of asking Jesus himself, sends some of the Jewish elders to ask Jesus to heal his servant. When Jesus is about to get to the centurion's house, he sends some friends out to tell Jesus that he's not worthy of having him in his house (i.e. the centurion doesn't want to be seen with Jesus). Jesus somehow concludes that the man is faithful and heals his servant from where he is.

First of all, this distance healing is a lot different than having to spit in people's faces and shout words to the heavens in order to work magic. Second, what does the centurion's faith matter when it comes to healing his servant? Shouldn't Jesus heal the servant because the servant has a lot of faith? Finally, what makes the centurion faithful? The centurion somehow felt he wasn't worthy of Jesus, so he was willing to let his servant die. That just sounds like an ass hole.

Next, Jesus goes to a town called Nain where he sees a coffin being carried out of town. Jesus decides that this person shouldn't have been killed and resurrects him on the spot. This brings up a lot of questions. What made this person more worthy of resurrection than anyone else? Why didn't Jesus resurrect all the worthy people when he was on earth? Did the boy just get resurrected because he happened to be being carried out at that moment? Finally, and most importantly, why the hell didn't Matthew and Mark even mention this? Isn't randomly resurrecting someone a pretty big deal?

The middle of the chapter is John sending servants to ask Jesus if he is the one everyone's been waiting for. Did John forget that God ripped the sky open when Jesus was baptized? Shouldn't John (a prophet) know for sure who Jesus is?

The chapter ends with another story that Matthew and Mark don't mention. Jesus is having dinner with one of the Pharisees when a woman starts kissing his feet, crying on Jesus's feet, and pouring perfume on his feet (foot fetish?). Jesus then turns to Peter and rebukes him for not wetting his feet when he came to Peter's house, not kissing him, and not putting oil on his head. Maybe Peter didn't have any money for oil when he gave it all away for you, Jesus.

Jesus then forgives the woman for all of her sins, and says "Your faith has saved you". No, her ability to give a good pedicure saved her.

Have you heard Christians are being oppressed in America?
Many Christians in America have been wondering, at the rate our dominant culture is growing more hostile toward Christianity, how long it will be until all public expression of the Christian faith will be outlawed.

Thanks to an article from LifeSiteNews, I believe we have another indicator.
Right, I'm sure the 76% of American Christians are very hostile toward Christianity. Are you kidding? How can someone have fooled themselves into believing that outlawing expression of Christianity is, in any way, imminent?

The article he's talking about goes on to talk about the Alliance of Romania’s Families (ARF) being banned from joining the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) because they referred to same sex marriage as "human degradation". In the FRA's letter they called the ARF's statement, "a fundamental rights perception that is incompatible with the participation in the FRP."

Let's take a step back and remember what the writer of this article just said. This is supposedly an indicator that Christianity will soon be outlawed in America. A Romanian organization was banned from joining a government organization, because they say shitty things. They weren't banned from saying shitty things. They just weren't allowed to join something. This is obviously a step toward the elimination of Christianity (at least in fundie land).
So to believe what God told us, that homosexual behavior is a violation of His design for the expression of human sexuality, to recognize that this immoral behavior is a health hazard and a threat to healthy families, to maintain that people caught up in this obviously unnatural lifestyle should be encouraged to change…in the liberal lexicon, that is “hate.”
Whoa, wait a minute. When did the ARF say that they thought same sex marriage was "a violation of [God's] design for the expression of human sexuality"? Somehow I don't think they would be banned if they had said it like that. They said same sex marriage was "human degradation".

I love this new "health hazard" aspect to the condemnation of homosexuality. Driving your car is dangerous, is that also immoral? In fact, driving your car is "unnatural" too. If God mean't for us to drive around, he would have given us wheels. I guess by these shallow (probably untrue) definitions, homosexuality is just as immoral as driving your car to work. And yes, for the record, if I say that people driving their cars (or being gay) are degrading humanity, then I'm being hateful. I'm not going to change my definition of hate just because it happens to intersect with your definition of practicing your religion.


  1. ThelostandthedamnedJuly 2, 2010 at 5:07 AM

    Fantastic article. To me the bible is just a collection of badly written fantasy short stories; full of plot inconsistencies & coincidences.

  2. Luke 6

    Luke 6:1-10 (cf. Mark 2:23-28,3:1-6; Matt 12:1-13). There are a few notable differences between Luke's and Mark's version of this periscope: Mark mistakenly says that the high priest in David's time was Abiathar, which Luke and Matthew knew to be false, so they dropped that detail. Similarly, the anger that Jesus displays in Mk 3:5 is missing from the other accounts. Luke also makes it explicit that Jesus healed the man with the shriveled hand on the Sabbath, something that Mark doesn't actually state but only .(Matthew has the healing even occur on the same day, whereas for the other 2 evangelists it is on another Sabbath.)

    Luke 6:16. Note that Luke's list of disciples is a little different from that in the other 2 Gospels (we've read so far). Luke has a "Judas son of James" replacing Thaddeus.

    Luke 6:17. Jesus gives the beatitudes on a plain (The Sermon on the Plain), whereas Matthew has him offering them on a mountain (The Sermon on the Mount). Matthew's beatitudes are more spiritual ("Blessed are the poor in spirit," "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness"), whereas Luke's are more material ("Blessed are you who are poor," "Blessed are you who hunger now"). It is generally believed that Luke's are closer to the original version in Q.

  3. Luke 7

    Luke 7:1-10. Bryan, the centurion is said to have great faith because he assumed Jesus could heal the servant at a distance. Then again, it could've just been a coincidence that the servant recovered (or perhaps due to some other treatment), since Jesus wasn't even near him when he did.

    Luke 7:11. The town of Nain (=modern day Nein or Naim) didn't have a gate, but Luke got the idea that it did from 1 Kings 17:10, from where he got the rest of this story of Jesus raising the widow's son, just as Elisha did.

    Bryan, it doesn't say that Jesus decided "that this person shouldn't have been killed." In fact, the reason why it appears that Jesus raised the son was that Jesus felt bad for the mother. So why doesn't Jesus raise all the dead children of poor widows?

  4. ""I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

    The one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is NOT born of women? Who would that be?"

    ...Uhm did you read this one wrong? He is simply saying that of all those born from women (so if you were born from a man or something else your exlcuded from this group), The least (using whatever mesurement to rate people- maybe faith?) that reside in the KoG (presumably in the afterlife- it is not said one needs to die to go there) is Greater than John, who is otherwise the greatest.

    So in levels of 'Greatness' this statement implies that this is the order: (least to greatest)

    +Everyone else (those not born of women? so those born of men or another way are here, and seem to all be on the same level?)
    +Those born of women (with its own levels)
    ==> John (being the greatest of 'those born of women');
    +Those who reside in the KoG (which is implied to have its own levels, the least of which is still greater than John)

  5. No offense, but I think that you are the one who is reading it wrong (albeit you're only a little off). This is why:

    "I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John"

    So John >= all those born of women.

    "yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he"

    the one who is least in KoG > John.


    the one who is least in KoG > all those born of women.

    Since everyone else in the KoG must be >= the one who is least in the KoG, this gives:

    anyone in the KoG > all those born of women.

    Thus the people in the KoG could not be born of women. But even Jesus was born of women, so who are these mysterious inhabitants of the KoG?

    OTOH, it is not necessarily true that everyone not born of women is in the KoG.

  6. Ah I see where your coming from there...

    However based on the previous contexts and points on the book, it is safe to assume that the intended point of the author is my explanation. Even though he did create his own little syntax error, do doubt due to his inferior skills of explanation.


  7. and just cause i can, lets do an illustration of his point XP

    | Everything else | Born of Women | Kingdom of GOD |
    ^ ^
    John Least in KoG

    (Hopefully this looks the same once posted)



Copyright © 2009, Page Info, Contact Me