PRINT
EMAIL
DISCUSSJoe Bob Harmonizes the Gospels
| 11/07/2007Illustration by David Pugliese
I'm tired of people bitchin' all the time about how the gospels don't make sense because Mark says something different from Matthew who says something different from Luke, and then John goes off on a whole crazy tangent. How long we been doing this, people? Three hundred years?
Let's settle this, all right?
Today I will prove how the apparent differences in scripture have a perfectly logical explanation.
Read this and then stop bugging me about it.
Okay. We're gonna look at four accounts of one event: What happened at the goldurn tomb?
Lemme sum it up for you . . .
Text Numero Uno: Matthew 28:1-8:
A. Two women went down to the tomb. Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary."
B. They went before sunup.
C. There was an earthquake and an angel rolled away the stone, and there were trembling guards watching.
D. The angel sat his butt down on the stone.
E. The angel invited the two ladies into the tomb and told them to inform the disciples that he would be showing up in Galilee.
F. The ladies ran away and didn't tell anybody.
Okay, got that one? Moving on.
Text Numero Two-o: Mark 16: 1-8:
A. Three women go down to the tomb—Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. They have spices with ‘em.
B. They went after the sun was already up.
C. The stone was already rolled back.
D. They saw a young man in white. Maybe he's an angel and maybe he's not.
E. The man in white tells them to inform the disciples that he'll be showing up in Galilee.
F. The ladies ran away and did tell the disciples.
Okay, I know what you're thinking. Those are some major differences, right? Just hold your horses a minute, I'm not done.
Text Numero Three-o: Luke 24: 1-12:
A. A whole bunch of women go down to the tomb, including Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and they have spices.
B. They go right at the crack of dawn.
C. The stone was already rolled back.
D. The ladies go inside, and two men in white show up.
E. The two men in white don't say diddly squat.
F. The ladies tell the disciples what they saw, but the disciples all say, "Oh you did not."
Okay, so much for the three "synoptic" gospels, as they call ‘em. But you know it's gonna get freaky now, right? Whenever you get to John, you got a whole ‘nother infomercial going on. No wonder John went to live in Turkey—after a while nobody would talk to him, because it was like, "Yeah, was over at John's just now, you don't wanna know what he said." So here goes . . .
Text Numero Four-o: John 20: 1-13:
A. Mary Magdalene shows up at the tomb alone.
B. It's still dark outside.
C. The stone is already rolled away.
D. Here's the interesting part. Based on the other three, we're expecting her to go inside right now, but instead she hauls ass out of there.
E. She goes and finds Peter and tells him the stone is rolled away. She also informs the "beloved disciple."
F. Meanwhile, she gets curious and goes back to the tomb, right behind the two men, and she hangs around after they're gone. Then she sees two angels in white, plus she sees Jesus, but she thinks he's a gardener.
I told you John would be freaky.
Okay, so what have we learned today?
First of all, never send women to report on something. Obviously at some point the combination of Mary and Mary Magdalene arguing over what they saw became an ancient version of The View, with Salome as the Rosie O'Donnell character who shows up late and starts to believe that she was there, too. By the year AD 39, you've got about 300 women who think they were there, plus some Roman guards who are badmouthing one another for who did the most trembling.
But the way to see through all the crapola is to not to concentrate on who was there, or what time it was, or whether the stone rolled away by itself or because of an earthquake, or whether one or two angels did or did not say anything about making for Galilee, but the very last part of the story. Who did she tell? (Or, okay, who did they tell?)
In Matthew, the women don't talk at all, they keep the whole deal to themselves. What could possibly be the explanation for this? I'll tell you what. Matthew was out of the loop. He was pissed. So when he wrote his gospel, he's like, "Sure they ran and told you guys, yeah, right. That's the way God works. He only tells one of us. What do you have, like, secret knowledge?" So he writes it as: hey, these ladies saw something, and they've been talking about it ever since. Who knows?
In Mark, the women run away and tell "the disciples." Nobody specific. They just told a bunch of disciples. Mark doesn't care because he was, like, eight years old at the time. There were so many guys in beards around, he's like, "Uh, yeah, Dad, it was that one with the crooked nose." No help at all. He just knows that somebody got told.
Then we've got Luke. He creates this whole drama where a bunch of breathless women are running up to the disciples and they're going, "Oh yeah, right, you talked to an angel—what are you doing, Cult of Ishtar astrology or something? Hardy har har." This was always Luke's big issue—that every time anything was revealed to the disciples, they acted like idiots. Luke assumes that everybody is a doofus up to the time of Pentecost, and then the disciples all suddenly become spiritual master-warriors. The fact is, Luke doesn't care who the women told, because he was probably a med school student at the time and just didn't have a dog in that fight.
Which brings us to the Weird Gospel. Why would John basically call bullstuff on all the other gospel accounts? First of all, he's the only guy who says it was Mary Magdalene, nobody else, who went down there in the dark. He probably told this version to Matthew, Mark and Luke, and all three of them go, "Only the hooker? That's it? There had to be lots of women down there." And John says, "Yeah, only the hooker." Then what does she do? Hauls ass! She's terrified—there might be grave robbers inside there, mutilating the body. Not the kind of story you would make up, right? And then who does she tell? Not "the disciples." She tells two specific people—Peter and "the beloved disciple." And we know who the beloved disciple is—that was the shy way they had for referring to John himself in his own gospel. So it's basically an eyewitness account. Mary Magdalene runs up wild-eyed and raving, and they tell her, "Well, don't worry, that was God." And so later, after she calms down, she goes back and sees the two angels and then Jesus himself, only she doesn't recognize him, so he has to tell her, "Hey it's me, but don't touch me." And then she runs and tells everybody that story, which explains why all the other gospel writers have women running all over the place telling the story. And then adding in the other Mary later because they're thinking "Hey, how can the hooker go before his mom goes?" And then, when it gets really crazy, adding in additional random females like Salome.
So the answer is: Mary Magdalene sees the tomb and freaks out. Two men tell her what she saw. Jesus confirms it. Women gossip about it for the next 50 years.
The Exegete has spoken.
Thanks for the email notification. I see you are in as fine form as ever. Bookmarked & forwarding to all on my list.
Did you already to the three B's of the bible? I imagine the breast count from the Old Testament section that focuses on who begat who really pads those numbers . . .
Fantabulous! I'd take it to my comparative religions class but I'm afraid they'd crucify ME. Thanks so much for the notification!
The whole incident can be explained away by the empty case of 'vision beer' found behind Magdelan's donkey. 'Nuff said.
No one could have said it better. Of course I'm a little surprised that people really didn't know that though. I thought everyone knew that's how it actually went down... guess I was wrong.
Joe Bob Briggs, biblical scholar. Truly a site to behold. Thanks for the edumacation, sir.
Summary:
Gospels: 4
Bad Spanish Number Translations: 3
Women who went to the tomb: 1, no 2, no 4, no wait...
Hookers: 1
Beloved Disciple: 1
Trips to the Tomb: Two-ish
Earthquake-fu
Gossip-fu
Idiot-Disciple-fu
Secret-Jesus-in-Disguise-as-a-Gardener-fu
Sissy-Roman-Guard-fu
Check 'em out!
Wunnerful, wunnerful!
A fine job, Joe Bob.
And a one and a two..
Tanka you, boys.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. But I wanna know: how many stars does each book get?
I love it!
Yessir, you are not just an exegete but, considering where Grapevine is, you must be considered the Texegete of all time.
Possibly you remember the Sam'l Beckett School of Scriptural Interpretation:
VLADIMIR:
Did you ever read the Bible?
ESTRAGON:
The Bible . . . [He reflects.] I must have taken a look at it.
VLADIMIR:
Do you remember the Gospels?
ESTRAGON:
I remember the maps of the Holy Land. Coloured they were. Very pretty. The Dead Sea was pale blue. The very look of it made me thirsty. That's where we'll go, I used to say, that's where we'll go for our honeymoon. We'll swim. We'll be happy.
VLADIMIR:
You should have been a poet.
ESTRAGON:
I was. [Gesture towards his rags.] Isn't that obvious?
Silence.
VLADIMIR:
Where was I . . . How's your foot?
ESTRAGON:
Swelling visibly.
VLADIMIR:
Ah yes, the two thieves. Do you remember the story?
ESTRAGON:
No.
VLADIMIR:
Shall I tell it to you?
ESTRAGON:
No.
VLADIMIR:
It'll pass the time. [Pause.] Two thieves, crucified at the same time as our Saviour. One—
ESTRAGON:
Our what?
VLADIMIR:
Our Saviour. Two thieves. One is supposed to have been saved and the other . . . [he searches for the contrary of saved] . . . damned.
ESTRAGON:
Saved from what?
VLADIMIR:
Hell.
ESTRAGON:
I'm going.
[He does not move.]
VLADIMIR:
And yet . . . [pause] . . . how is it –this is not boring you I hope– how is it that of the four Evangelists only one speaks of a thief being saved. The four of them were there –or thereabouts– and only one speaks of a thief being saved. [Pause.] Come on, Gogo, return the ball, can't you, once in a while?
ESTRAGON:
[with exaggerated enthusiasm.] I find this really most extraordinarily interesting.
VLADIMIR:
One out of four. Of the other three, two don't mention any thieves at all and the third says that both of them abused him.
ESTRAGON:
Who?
VLADIMIR:
What?
ESTRAGON:
What's all this about? Abused who?
VLADIMIR:
The Saviour.
ESTRAGON:
Why?
VLADIMIR:
Because he wouldn't save them.
ESTRAGON:
From hell?
VLADIMIR:
Imbecile! From death.
ESTRAGON:
I thought you said hell.
VLADIMIR:
From death, from death.
ESTRAGON:
Well what of it?
VLADIMIR:
Then the two of them must have been damned.
ESTRAGON:
And why not?
VLADIMIR:
But one of the four says that one of the two was saved.
ESTRAGON:
Well? They don't agree and that's all there is to it.
VLADIMIR:
But all four were there. And only one speaks of a thief being saved. Why believe him rather than the others?
ESTRAGON:
Who believes him?
VLADIMIR:
Everybody. It's the only version they know.
ESTRAGON:
People are bloody ignorant apes.
joe bob, if indeed that is your real name. (jk i know its not)
you sir have once again hightened my ability to process cognetive thunk. your right on point with all your notations but let us remember that we are all reading (with few exceptions) king james slaughtered translation of the bible so with that in mind remember that as he was telling his people what to write down im sure he forgot alot of stuff he had already said.
also i didnt think there was enough essential nudity in the bible
You, sir, should consider a braille edition.
You've been listening to too may Popes ... Mary M was not a hooker but a beloved disciple.
Mary Magdalene had demonic spirits cast out of her by Jesus. The sinful woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears was not Mary Magdalene. That latter woman was never named in the scripture.
John Bloom, alias "Joe Bob Briggs," was a regular on the Comedy Channel's "The Daily Show" quite a few years ago. And he also hosted a TV show which showed movies where he made silly comments.
The owner/publisher of the Wittenburg Door is the Trinity Foundation which is supposed to be a church of folks who are practing Pentecostals. It is one thing to make fun of ignorant preachers and preachers who twist the true Gospel; but, another thing for Bloom to make fun of what is found in the Bible itself.
Man, I'm thinking your spring is wound too tight! Words can't destroy or strengthen faith.
By the way, I don't even think John was alive when the girl or girls started their quilting party. Not being an expert, I'm sure you'll enlighten me.
eh? Howzat? What do you mean? of course words can destroy faith. If someone beats you down it can make you lose trust in what you believe in. And also the old man argument isn't worth repeating for the same reason as what the other poster said. Saying the gospels were over 100 years is a load of bunk.
Geez, I thought Joe-Allen was wound pretty tight, but you have definite issues. You're just going to have to accept the fact that most biblical scholars readily admit that there are many inconsistancies in the various gospels. The Gospel of John, for example, is generally believed to be dated to around 90 to 100. Now tell me, if you can how John would have written some or all of this Gospel when he was at the advanced age of around 100 years old. Considering that the average human being lived to around 35 to 50 during that period, a 100 year old man would have been indeed, very notable.
It is unfortunate that the King James version of the bible and in fact, all versions of the Bible are compilations of works that the editor found "worthy" of inclusion. Neither you nor I really know who were the real authors of the various writings in the Bible.
Our man, Joe Bob, may not know his ass from a lap dance when it comes to the Gospels, but as it turns out, he's no less uninformed than any of us.
Nothing is "off limits." Nothing! At the end of the day, faith isn't about "what" you believe, it's about "if" you believe.
So to paraphrase a Comcast Digital Voice commercial:
"Sorry, Davie-Scott, you tiger now!"
The Gospel of John, for example, is generally believed to be dated to around 90 to 100.
Not even close. Probably 50 to 60
One of the "bestest", "mostest" liberal scholars of the 20th cnetury repudiated the late dates on any and all of the New Testament books..
John A. T. Robinson "Redating the New Testament" His basic premiss was All BOOKs in the New Testament written before AD 70... the old man story is not worth repeating again as an argument.
Sorry about that!!!!!!!
Actually, the Gospel of Mark breaks off at the point where it says, "the women told no one." The text following that was added later and no scholars consider it part of the original text.
What's interesting to me is the fact that Mark is presumed to be the earliest Gospel, and Matthew and Luke came later and built on Mark, so instead of separate witnesses we have one early Gospel and two later redactions of that early Gospel, a literary development in other words.
What's also interesting is the change from Mark and Matthew to Luke. Both Mark and Matthew say that Jesus had gone on before them to Galilee, and "THERE ye shall see him." Luke changes that message at the tomb to read, "Do you remember when he was preaching about the resurrection in Galilee," thus changing the message and changing Galilee from the place where the raised Jesus would be seen, to a place where the pre-resurrection Jesus once preached. The Gospel of Luke would have to change the message at the tomb of course because that same Gospel is the one that includes stories about Jesus appearing to his disciples in (and near) Jerusalem, which is in Judea, not in Galilee, so Luke couldn't have the disciples receiving a command to immediately go to Galilee to see the raised Jesus. Hence the command was changed. Or maybe Jesus did first appear in Galilee or seemed to, and the stories of appearances in and around Jerusalem arose later, after the earliest two Gospels were written but before Luke's Gospel was written, so Luke was accommodating the new stories about appearances in and around Jerusalem.
As for the stories of the resurrection, and the bodily ascension into heaven, one can't help wondering why the so-called speeches and encounters with the resurrected Jesus either had to be invented (last chapter of Mark), or merely assumed without giving any of their words (such as Luke's mention of a so-called speech the raised Jesus gave on the road to Emmaus in which he pointed himself out in "all" the Scriptures to two disciples, but a speech whose words were lost. Even worse, there's the so-called resurrection teachings of Jesus mentioned in Acts that took place over a period of many days that again were either not recalled nor preserved by either the interest of the disciples nor by God's power to preserve them. Matthew, an early Gospel, only recalls a few sentences of the raised Jesus, enough to spout what was church dogma at the time Matthew was written, i.e., to go and baptize.
I guess the disciples and those they taught all found it much easier to recall the words of the pre-resurrection Jesus, while the words of the post-resurrection Jesus were lost down the memory hole. But it would seem to me that the words of the post-resurrection Jesus should have been the most memorable, since they came last, and he'd gotten their attention by then. Instead we see N.T. authors having to make up whole chapters of such words such as the last chapter in Mark. Or having to allude to so-called discourses of the raised Jesus over a period of many days according to Acts, but all of whose words having been left out of Acts. Not a sentence preserved! These tall tales like the "ascension into heaven" which was seen only by the apostles, sound like fables.
J.B.B., your forte seems to be reviewing drive-inn movies, not contextual criticism of the New Testament.
I will just cut and paste Edward B's reply. Oh, maybe I will just let somebody do it for me.
By the way, is there a club in the Dallas-metro area for amateur Bible scholars?
Text Numero Uno
A. Mary Magdaline and the other Mary go to the tomb.
B. The actual translation is, "as it began to dawn"
C. In Verse 10, Jesus instructs them to tell "His brethren to leave for Galilee where they will see Him" In verse 16, they're headed for Galilee. They probably told them...or the brethren learned it by ESP.
D. The angel "sat on his butt on a stone"....and your point is?
Text Numero Two-o
A. The "other Mary" was probably the mother of James (what d'ya bet?) Mark speaks of Salome, a third woman. The Matthew account is still true, isn't it? Didn't Mary Magdaline and the other Mary go to the tomb?
B. "When the sun had risen" (NASB) doesn't conflict with the Matthew account. Can the sun actually be in the sky at dawn...even on the horizon...yeaaah. The Greek word for DAWN there means 'giving light" - "epiphauo"
C. Let's see...if the 1st angel rolled the stone back then it would, in fact, already be rolled back when they entered the tomb. Sounds like 2 different accounts of the same thing to me.
D. What if...they heard the message (from Matthew) from the man in white, sitting on the stone, and then entered the tomb to see for themselves? Wow! Maybe the second "man in white", "sitting to the right", re-stated to the women what they had just heard, for emphasis. ("Look, Ladies, my friend JUST told you what happened,
but just to be sure you have it clear...") These was probably angels, though I suppose it could have been recent Mormon converts in dress, waiting to be baptized for all their ancestors.
F. Mary Magdaline DOES go tell the disciples to go to Galilee, just like in Mathew.
How about that?
Text Numero 3-o
A. It doesn't say a "whole bunch of women went to the tomb". It says, (After the report to the disciples) "Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles". This still doesn't make Matthew or Mark's account untrue.
C. The stone was already rolled back. Yawnnnn!!!!
D. Same as Mark's account, but maybe the two men appeared...then...one sat on the stone, the other stepped into the tomb and sat down to the right. Who knows?
E. The two men in white didn't say diddly-squat???? How about, "“Why do you seek the living One among the dead? “He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again?” (vss. 5-7)
F. I would probably say, "Oh, you did not", also!
Numero 4-o
A. Sorry...John never says Mary Magdaline went to the tomb Alone.
B. While it was still dark...you got me there, Joe Bob...but I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for it. In the Word, there always is.
C. The stone...yeah, yeah, yeah...
D. E. D and E sound like a pretty good summary of the whole thing wrapped up in 2-3 sentences; don't you think so?
F. Maybe Mary stayed at the tomb for a few minutes after the other women left. Perhaps Mary was kept from recognizing Jesus, at first, because that was the way God wanted it. Maybe when she "turned around and saw that it was Jesus", He was more than 12 inches away...maybe he was 25 feet away. And it wasn't exactly High-Noon, now, was it?
Actually, Joe Bob...the narrative after you comment on the 4 passages is shot through with error, also. But here's my point...
I could prove to you that the Bible is everything it claims to be...
... like, I could show you in Ecclesiastes 1:7, Job 36:27-28 and Isaiah 55:10 where the Hydrological Cycle is described a couple of thousand years before science knew about it...
...I could have you look at Isaiah 40:12 where the principle of Isostasy is described in a pretty-to-the-danged-point manner...again 2-3,000 years before science knew about it...
...I could tell you about a man named Herbert Spencer who lived in the mid-to-late 1800's. He came up with a great scientific revelation - The Classification of the Knowable, which says EVERYTHING in existence can be classified into 1 of 5
catagories Time, Force, Action, Space and Matter. Then I could show you Genesis 1:1
" In the beginning (TIME) God (FORCE) created (ACTION) the heavens
(SPACE) and the earth" ( MATTER)...but that probably wouldn't impress you...
MAYBE...I could show you Job 26:7 where it says God reached out the north over the empty space and hung the earth on nothing...nawwww...
I could try showing you Job 38:31, where one of Job's buddies said to him, "Can you bind the cluster of Pleiades or loose the belt of Orion" - and then share with you that it wasn't until the 16th century, I think, that man knew the 7 sisters of
Pleiades had a gravational field, while the stars of Orion didn't...
WAIT...what if I could show you where Isaiah (40:21-22) Spoke of, "He who sitteth above the circle of the earth"...where the Hebrew word for circle means "sphere"?
I got it...how about sharing with you that Job knew the moon, itself, gave off no light??? (Job 25:4-5)...
But I won't do any of that...because you seem to be like so many of us who want to fit in with the crowd, make fun of Christians, the Bible and the LORD Jesus.
That's OK. Jesus told us to expect that.
But be sure Joe Bob...no one, but no one, will get by in the long run with making fun of the very WORD of the living God.
By the Way...I do love the God Stuff videos. They are hilarious. Of course I don't see that as making fun of Christians...just heretics.
And Door-Folks...I love your humor, but how in the world can you allow something to be put into print that does nothing but cast doubt upon the written Word of God? Have you guys gone heretical or apostate? HEY! Why don't you guys do a similar humerous article on Mohammed's revelations and watch what happens????????
Actually, Jesus is the WORD of God. The Bible contains the Word as the manger contained the baby Jesus, to misquote Marty Luther.
In addition, there is nothing blasphemous in pointing out inconsistencies and errors in Scripture. They are the products of their times, just as we are. The only time pointing them out becomes a propblem is when one assumes that the Bible was somehow writen by God and inerrant, a dogma only possible if previouly assumed.
The words "Jesus" and "contains" were pruned from my previous post. Where the go is left as an exercise for the student.
a "y" was pruned from my previous post. Etc.
Sorry, David-Scott, see my second reply to Joe-Allen for my reply to you. Pressed the wrong damnedable button!
Thank you David
Good post Dave! I do too love the God Stuff videos while embarrassed for us Christians at the same time. I guess we can't blame ole' Joe Bob for venturing into the abyss of biblical exegesis after all his wandering around in the morass of goofy "christianness".
In some sense, it is almost a waste of time to battle against low brow comments like his since the only point is to poke fun and get some laughs. This "one inch deep and a mile wide" uninformed discourse is not interested in a rational exchange and Christians should not get so bent out of shape about. I am surprised a bit though as you that the Door would post it, but that seems in keeping with Ole's cowboy approach.
Just letting you know there is another knuckle-dragging, bible thumping, wife hating, flared nostril, fire-and-damnation Dark Ages believer in the woods with you.
You have let your presuppositions about the nature of truth get the best of you! You think the Bible can only be true if it meets a modern criteria of science and history. Well, new for you...the Bible was not written under the notions and assumptions of modernism.
I applaud the article if for no other reason it tries to get Christians to stop forcing their own presupposition into the Bible. I for one am tired of eating "gospel stew" in which the theology of these four different gospels is chopped up and discarded so someone can try to make them all fit into a historical box.
How does an angel roll back a stone? I thought Christian mythology says they angels were like spirits or ghosts with no physical properties. It would take a great deal of energy and force to move a huge stone like that. Did they burn any calories in the process?
Do Christians every ask themselves logical questions about this load of crap they believe?
yes, we have all gone heretical and apostate, now please be quiet.
OK.
Mary Magdalene a hooker? Where did you get that info? Never trust a bunch of women to tell a story? What's that? Male chauvanism revisited? I really liked the idea of making this issue of the different accounts of the empty tomb more accesible through humor, but there is good humor and bad humor and yours is bad because it dwells on sterotypes. You really think that John was an eyewitness and that Luke was a doctor? Where have you been the last 50 years of biblical scholarship? Anyway, good luck with your page. I am surprised women readers did not complain of your obvious sexism.
Women read? Don't be absurd. You go, Joe Bob.
BTW, you want good biblical scholarship? Why are you HERE? This is HUMOR. Where have YOU been the last 50 megabytes of the internet?
Hey, humor can hurt. It can hide hatred. Humor can also kill. The Roman soldiers used humor when they ridiculed Jesus, as they did with most of the victims of crucifixion. I don't think Jesus found it very funny, I mean, that crown of thorns you know...The minute humor excludes or denigrates it ceases to be humor. It becomes something else.
Thanks Osvaldo, that's funny stuff.
It is true that Mary Magdalene was not a hooker. Some Pope in the middle ages got that mixed up, and most Christians have never gotten it right since. Ditto, she was not the one who washed Jesus's feet with the costly oil and her own tears and hair; even Ceci Wynans has that mixed up. Mary Magdalene was a fairly prosperous woman, who didn't need any devils thrown out, but did provide a good deal of support to Jesus and the apostles, considering they all lived like Ole Anthony and needed people to put them up for the night when they were in town, given them a little change for the road, etc. But, that said, it was a good exegesis, which reminds us not to get fixated on the details, just look at where Jesus was going. And Ceci's song is good too, even if it got some details wrong. Plenty of women have lived all the details, even if Mary Magdalene missed out on some of them.
It has been too long (2000 years, give or take a couple of decades) since irony, caustic humor, and general punnery (is that a word?) have been part of Scripture (well, there was that Cotton Patch thing, but they neutered it into a musical).
Thanks!
I get the strong impression that John Bloom, whose alter-ego is Joe Bob Briggs, is not a real believer in Jesus the Christ. Bloom uses his Briggs persona on TV and online at his website to show how filthy and vulgar his imagination really is.
It is stated in scripture that one should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers and that is just what the Trinity Foundation is doing with its friendship with John Bloom.
I'm rolling ...
Let me get this right - Joe Bob ain't a REAL believer because he doesn't believe like you do? What do you know? God lives in Oklahoma.
That's why the devil went down to Georgia.
Maybe Joe Bob is the Reason God Made Oklahoma...
Gosh, Anonymous in Oklahoma, if you feel that way, why don't you just change the channel? DON'T read "Some Things Jesus Would NOT Say!" That one will really piss you off! You need to calm down so I recommend http://billygraham.com/. It's a nice place to visit. Dr. Graham is more your style. He's a very cool guy! I'm sure you'll like him.
Hi Joe Bob
Have you ever considered that Jesus was the original Zombie?
This is a something a friend of mine here in Johanneburg, Jaxon Rice the leader of a local psychobily band called the Diesel Whores (http://www.myspace.com/dieselwhores) likes to preach on at length whenever he is drunk or high on coke (ie always).
Jaxon's logic runs something like this:
1. Jesus returns from the dead
2. Nobody, not even his old disciples recognize him
3. He encourages everyone to eat his flesh and drink his blood
Who but a Zombie would do that?
It's so obvious when you think about it. It's vital www.wittenburgdoor.com saves people from the Zombie Jesus.
He's like a trailer park Marcus Borg!
Wow. I'm not sure what is sadder; the fact that some of you had the time (not to mention the inclination) to type REALLY obscenely LONG posts, or the fact that I read most of them. At any rate, get a freaking life.
Well, I really tried to get a life but it didn't work. Any suggestions? :)
Buy Cialis - Order Viagra Online: Where and How?
So you don't know where to buy Viagra or Cialis online and you want me to guide you. I can provide you with some tips on how to buy such impotence drugs online but first you need to make sure your doctor allows it.
Some doctors who prescribe Viagra for their patients would mind if they knew that their patients are buying Viagra or Cialis from a web-based drugstore or any other form of an online pharmacy.
Most Viagra customers would prefer generic, cheap tablets for less than $5 USD per pill. The lower the prices the less the side effects.
As I stated above...
I applaud the article if for no other reason it tries to get Christians to stop forcing their own presupposition into the Bible. I for one am tired of eating "gospel stew" in which the theology of these four different gospels is chopped up and the differences discarded so someone can try to make them all fit into a historical box.
Even though he does confuse Mark and Matt's accounts of what the women do after they go to the tomb it still points out that there are great differences between the four "accounts."
Hey, I have an idea, let try to read this gospels as theological narrative and not as modern history. Maybe that is the truth being conveyed.
I know John Bloom. He is a struggling Christian like the rest of us. Anyone who presumes to "know" otherwise is not serving the cause of Christ. He ain't perfect -- ain't been but One of them types -- but John is a Christian. Take your attacks elsewhere ... like the Ann Coulter site you goons seem to love so much.
Big D,
Ain't gotta dog in this hunt. You can defend Bloom if you know him; got no problem with that. Have you noticed that your vitriole at the end of your post is strangely reminiscent if those you attack?
Post new comment