God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of The Bible (44 page)

Jesus talked about slavery but never denounced it as morally abhorrent. He healed a blind person but didn’t cure blindness. He healed a leper but didn’t cure leprosy. And he proved himself less of an equal to moral and courageous leaders such as Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela in his politically motivated decision to avoid denouncing any of the barbaric Old Testament laws. And he never stood up for the Jewish people whilst they groaned under Roman oppression. Most significantly, he failed to impress all but a handful of Jews that he was in fact the descendent of the Almighty. If there were a God, and this was his son, then shouldn’t we all feel a sense of profound disappointment at his lack of achievement?

Michel Eyquem de Montaigne

It is widely accepted by biblical scholars that the Book of Acts, or Acts of the Gospels, as it was previously known as, is written by the same author of the Gospel of Luke, at least 70-100 years after the death of Jesus.

The author begins with a prologue addressed to a character named Theophilus, in addition to a reference ‘to my earlier book’, which we know to be whoever Luke was.

Acts provides somewhat of a historical account of the early days of Christianity and its struggle to establish itself as a bona-fide religion amongst Roman-led Jews. The author begins with a narrative proclaiming Jesus as the savior and that the end of time draws near:

Not content to leave the opening passage with some sense of realism, the author indulges a little magical, mystery imagery:

Doesn’t it seem at least a tiny bit obvious that 1
^st
century man would use descending and ascending clouds as a depiction of the mode of transport to heaven? I would think it more creative if Jesus were to transform into an albatross before their eyes, mutter a few words, steal a chip, and then flap off into the sunset. Or did I once dream that whilst experimenting with LSD a few years ago? I can never tell!

At the end of the first chapter, the process to nominate a replacement for the treacherous Judas is named, as is a roll call for the twelve disciples who now carry the responsibility to spread the Christian message. This first roll call included the disciples Peter, John, James, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas son of James. This coming together also included Mary the mother of Jesus and his brothers. With all present eligible to vote, they elected Matthias to be the replacement for the now deceased Judas.

The Gospel Matthew had told the story of a guilt-ridden Judas, remorseful and tormented by his own treachery, who paid guilt money to the priests at the temple before throwing a rope over a tree and hanging himself. Certainly a tragic ending to a tragic figure! The book of Acts, however, completely contradicts this story, and shows God once again to be an unforgiving murderous thug. The passage reads:

For me, the question is not so much whether Judas hung himself or his intestines exploded, but why, if he was remorseful for his actions, as Matthew had illustrated, did God end his life in such a grotesquely violent manner? The early Christians were eager to caricaturize God as a more loving, forgiving father figure in the New Testament but they really do a number on themselves in this conflicting narrative. A narrative that only strengthens our case against God!

In these early days, the disciples were continually met with stiff resistance from their fellow Jews, who by and large were not swayed by the messianic claims of Jesus during his life or after his death. Hence, the disciples and, therefore, Luke had to continue to increase the bullshit rhetoric in hope that this would sway some easily duped fools. Luke tells of a moment whereby all twelve disciples were gathered in the same place observing the day of the Pentecost, when:

Tongues of fire! Hence, the reason Pentecostal and born-again loonies practice the utterly ridiculous, self-humiliating act of speaking in nonsensical gibberish on Sundays. I do enjoy Luke’s final remark though to the speaking of tongues episode:

I love that. ‘Some made fun of them’. Of course, they did. It’s fucking hilarious. Better, is that this single sentence also suggests that the twelve disciples were closet winos! Getting drunk and talking shit. No different to what happens on weekends around my house during midnight poker games.

Even more comedic is Peter’s defence of the non-believer’s accusations of their inebriation:

It’s only nine in the fucking morning? Well now, there’s a defence I could never use with my wife, as I have been known to crack open a lager for breakfast, or more often imbibe the medicinal properties of a Bloody Mary as a cure for a Sunday morning hangover.

Peter then launches into a tirade against the Jews that laid the foundation for the atrocities of the Crusades in the 11
^th
Century, and continues to fuel Christian anti-Semitism even today:

Based on this, I think the author needs a reread of his former book as it didn’t seem that God spared Jesus any agony. So much so that Jesus’ final words were: “Father, why have you forsaken me?” Not the words of a man enjoying his journey to God’s right hand. But more importantly, it is a direct accusation against the Jews for the responsibility of Jesus’ death.

The Jewish non-believers continued to persecute the apostles, seizing Peter and John, and putting them before the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law in Jerusalem. These Jewish statesmen were displeased that this rag-tag bunch of followers of a charismatic preacher, were running around proclaiming the deceased Jesus to be the son of God and his alleged resurrection as evidence of this. Furthermore, Peter’s healing of the crippled man was called into question and the Jewish council requested they stop all healing of lepers, cripples and the vision impaired, out of concern that these miracles would convince Jews to convert to the small but growing army of Jesus worshipers. To this demand, Peter replied defiantly:

Without finding proper charges to lay against their alleged crimes, Peter and John were released and allowed to return to their people. Safely back amongst their flock of fellow Jesus worshippers, Paul led the posse in prayer:

This is problematic, for my money. The basis for ‘selling’ Jesus to the non-believers is the wonder of his ‘alleged’ miracles. But it is apparently obvious that for all the supposed miracles Jesus reportedly performed within these Jewish towns, he fell well short of impressing more than a small band of followers. If he really was so special, while he was alive, then why did his own people dismiss him as little more than a raving lunatic? Christians today will argue that the Jews rejected him because they wanted to see miracles, well he did perform them and now his followers were performing them in the same manner as Jesus did. Why didn’t Jesus give irrefutable evidence? So, we would not have this Abrahamic, monotheistic shit fight we have today between the Muslims, Christians and Jews? Why was it left up to his travelling salesmen such as Peter and the rest of the apostles to promote the Jesus brand?

At this stage in the Christian recruitment drive, the number of followers is said to have grown to a very modest 5000. Upon witnessing the success the perpetual performing of miracles was having on growing their flock, the Apostles continued from town to town. As following crowds began to bring their demonically possessed and crippled loved ones into the streets so they would be restored to full health with a tap on the head from Peter. The Jewish high priests and elders became envious of the Apostles’ growing star power and celebrity and subsequently issued an arrest warrant for all twelve of them. Once in jail, an angel of the Lord came to visit them and opened the doors to the cells, freeing the inmates in the middle of the night. The angel gave instructions that they should return to the temple courts to continue to preach the word of Jesus. As dawn broke the priests were made aware that the Apostles had escaped and soon thereafter found them preaching again at the temple courts. The chief priest addressed his fugitives:

To which Peter replied:

What
? Although the respective Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ death wildly contradict, they were at least unanimous that he was crucified, but now Peter states quite clearly that it was death by hanging. Oh, Peter what have you done?

When the chief priests and elders heard this blasphemy they flew into a rage and demanded that the Apostles be put to death immediately. But, after some deliberation, they opted not to execute them and instead elected for the softer option of a good public flogging. They were also given strict instructions to never speak of Jesus in public again, or a crucifixion would await their disobedience. In defiance, the Apostles continued to preach the merits of Jesus from house to house throughout Jerusalem.

With the continued growing number of converts, albeit modest numbers, to this fledgling religion of Christianity, the twelve Apostles became bogged down in the day to day operations of feeding and caring for their flock of followers. Thus, by committee they decided to elect seven of their Greek believers to the role of stewards, to prepare the meals, hand out bread to the hungry and to perform some miracles on the side. They chose:

Of the seven, it was Stephen who stood out from the other six, as he took straight to his newfound role with much vigor and enthusiasm, performing great wonders and miraculous signs amongst the believers. Word of this Stephen character travelled quickly to the high priests and they accused him of blaspheming against the word of Moses and God. Brought before the Hebrew court, the elders allegedly brought false witnesses against Stephen to ensure a speedy trial and quick conviction. In his own defence he delivered a long speech that retraced the history of the Jewish people, providing a summary of their escape from Egypt; the birth of Moses; the rise of Joshua; and to the kingdom of David. All things that would please the listening ears of his Jewish accusers! Unfortunately for Stephen, he did not stop his rant there and finished with a verbal lambasting that all but ensured his doom: