It occurred to me that I found a nice passage for churchy anti-vaxxers: Luke 4:12, which has an analog in [checks Bible] Matthew 4:7 and the story of Abraham but none that I can find in Mark. To wit,
Another beauty is Luke 3:23, another iteration of that dumb genealogy: "He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph [...]" Luke can't seem to help himself with the parenthetical expression there, unlike Matthew. (The passage is missing from Mark.) But if Jesus is the son of God, how does the genealogy even matter? It's yet another attempt to sell Christianity to Jews.
Jesus answered him, "It is said, 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"And speaking of Jesus's notable habit of quoting the Old Testament, Luke has him reading the Torah aloud in a synagogue in Luke 4:16, unlike the preceding Gospels. Again, I don't think this guy was the working class hero that he's been painted as.
Another beauty is Luke 3:23, another iteration of that dumb genealogy: "He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph [...]" Luke can't seem to help himself with the parenthetical expression there, unlike Matthew. (The passage is missing from Mark.) But if Jesus is the son of God, how does the genealogy even matter? It's yet another attempt to sell Christianity to Jews.
no subject
Date: 2023-05-07 12:01 am (UTC)From:I prefer Luke's testement over Mark and Matthew, his telling is more human in a lot of ways I think
no subject
Date: 2023-05-07 01:02 am (UTC)From:Tradition has it that Luke was Greek and likely well-read, unlike the other Evangelists. It’s not at all surprising that he came up with something more readable, with a more likable Jesus. But Mark rings truer for me: Jesus was a cranky bastard with some beliefs, e.g. about divorce, that aren’t so savory.