[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 283 KB, 2000x1200, The-Gospel-According-to-Mark-2000x1200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20642538 No.20642538 [Reply] [Original]

>11 A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12 The demons begged Jesus, “Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them.” 13 He gave them permission, and the impure spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.
Why would Jesus do that

>> No.20642602

>>20642538
Jews aren't big on pigs.

This passage obviously made an impression on Cormac McCarthy because he stuck it into Outer Dark. Outer Dark is a very odd book, and the giant herd of pigs rushing over a cliff for no reason is one of the oddest bits of it.

>> No.20642628

The bible is just ancient schizoposting.

>> No.20642680

it always cracks me up how prevalent
>And there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth
is in Mathew compared to the other Apostles. fire and brimstone/10

>> No.20643178

>>20642538
I like that Jesus-kun was so nice to the demons all the time.

>> No.20643186

>>20642602
>Jews aren't big on pigs
I workat a Chinese restaraunt and I can tell you beyond all doubt that's not true.

>> No.20643206

>>20642538
idk but Mark is the most kino of the Gospels

>> No.20643360

>>20643186
kek.

>> No.20643389

>>20643186
I support.
Pork meat is very tasty and looks like a turkey. We even Muslims eat pork, ie. not pork, but lard.

>> No.20643875

>>20643186
They call it safe treyf. The social class dynamics that went into the development of that custom are pretty interesting. Basically Jews in early America, being near the bottom of the social totem pole, weren't allowed in neighbourhoods or restaurants of other, higher-class ethnic groups. So they had to eat in restaurants belonging to the only people considered lower than them in society: Chinese.
But Chinese food has a lot of pork in it which is a problem, but the Jews coped by saying it was so diced and mashed up with the other ingredients that they could pretend it wasn't in the dish. "Treyf" means forbidden food, thus you get "safe treyf."

>> No.20644955

>>20643875
thanks, Shlomo

>> No.20644972

>>20644955
Mazel tov, pls donate to Israel so we can kill all arabs thank you goy

>> No.20644979

>>20642538
I non-ironically used to think that this passage was simply an analogy to say romans are filthy pigs.
But then I stopped being a liberal Christian and realized that it can only be literal.

Jesus in the Gospels never criticized the Roman empire, makes no sense that the evangelist would do so in a "disguised" way

>> No.20645110

>>20644979
When are you going to realise the inaccuracies in the Gospels and come to terms that the real Jesus was very anti-Roman, and go back to being a sensible liberal Christian?

>> No.20646503

>>20642538
Read the Bible

>> No.20646544

>>20642538
Better than them going into some innocents around.
>>20645110
Liberal Christians are pagans.

>> No.20647226

>>20646503
I swear to God I'm reading it and I can't figure out wtf it's is supposed to mean. I know pigs are used in the new testament to represent ignorant people ("do not cast pearls before swine"), but I don't understand why Jesus sends the impure spirits into the pigs. I can understand the metaphor of the impure spirits causing the pigs to drown themselves because it's saying that the evil within a person ultimately leads to their destruction, but why would Jesus send the spirits into the pigs in the first place? Is transferring impure spirits to someone else the only way to get rid of them?

>> No.20647361

>>20647226
They were literal pigs

>> No.20647386

>>20647226
According to Wikipedia:

Thomas Aquinas argued that Jesus allowed the demons to destroy the pigs in order to make the point that his purpose was primarily for the good of men's souls, not their bodies or property (including their animals).[3] This interpretation has been shared by a long line of commentators up to the present day, including I. Howard Marshall and Mark Driscoll.[3]

>> No.20647658

>>20647386
Thanks