Julio

Since Jesus had subsequently to run away from the enraged owners of that pork industry, we know nothing else about the two exorcised men; but the unclean devils were free to infest them again, that’s for sure!
Nobody actually knew whatever happened to the men, so much so that Mark and Luke write about only one.
Thanks, Jesus, for your unkindness.
But why wouldn’t God the Father of this weird Jesus keep the evil guests away from the poor victims when the very first managed to infiltrate his body?
What the hell is wrong with the system that Jesus only appeared in the scene when the spirits had MULTIPLIED in front of God’s eyes [which the Bible says perceive everything, Hebrews 4:13] and had invaded the victim by the hundreds?!
What would be the problem to hold off the very first one, to protect an innocent man: our innocent human race, for that matter?!
You see, this miracle is a devastating proof against the god this Jesus was announcing: he used the two poor men only as PUBLICITY propaganda to promote his Christ.
Is this divine honesty?
I don’t see it.

Julio

But most critical, what did Jesus do to keep the devils, demons and evil spirits away from this planet, if he was so passionate and powerful to exorcise them?!
You see, the miracle failed right there in two critical areas:
one, he didn’t destroy the evil spirits, which would leave the swine and be free to invade somebody else’s body;
and two, he left all the other possessed in the world still at the mercy of Satan!
That’s why I said the “miracle” was a disgrace and a flop.
That is, this incompetent Jesus didn’t do a clean job at all!
And next comes the church telling us he was God and we must worship him, with the disadvantage and aggravation that we have to give the church MONEY to keep this massive fantasy going!

Julio

The devils were very clever in this fable, for they managed to trick Jesus to let them go into the swine.
Jesus couldn’t see it quickly enough, for he wouldn’t be able to drown spirits!
Ah, what a laugh the evil spirits had afterwards!
They knew that to escape the herd it would only be a matter of jumping into the lake and drown all of them to be free again!
Clever demons, I tell you.

Julio

However, Jesus should have been prosecuted right that day for destroying other people’s property.
Why would he not be intelligent enough to instead dispatch the devils to the outskirts of the Big Bang and leave the INNOCENT swine alone?
Why sacrifice blameless animals for a miracle?!
If that happened today, Jesus would be in trouble with the local SPCA!
What sin had the innocent swine done, while enjoying the day in the fields getting fat for a more productive end?
What divine right had Jesus to destroy private property!

Julio

The Bible teachers and commentators appear here by the dozen to defend Jesus with the lame excuse that the Jews were not allowed to raise swine for the law said so, and more crap!
Why then did Jesus leave out ALL the other pork industrialists in the nation, if he was such a law-abiding enthusiast?!!
I smell a rat in all those comments to help Jesus escape ordinary justice.
Every Jew was democratically free to violate the Law of Moses, because Moses himself NEVER respected it!
The Law said: “Thou shalt not kill!”, but Moses was the first to infringe it, when he killed INNOCENT children, their pregnant mothers and delivered innocent virgins to his deranged militia (Numbers 31:17)!!
By doing that, those Bible teachers become partakers in the same crime.
In fact, Jesus didn’t heal anybody as far as we can see in the text, but aggravated a lot of people and had to run away!
Since when did a christ make miracles and then had to escape the wrath of the spectators?!
He didn’t do any miracle over there.
Jesus was stubborn enough to do miracles on the Sabbath and go out in the farms and kill swine!
The only word he says in that pork miracle is “Go”; all the rest is Matthew’s choreography.
Yes, but they came back and are still around, after 20 centuries, many in the churches and their leaders, who constantly tell lies in the same fashion to earn an easy living.

Julio

Matthew mentions two blind men, but Mark and Luke mention only one.
As usual, the details of these parallel miracles are different, which is a good example of the way the story about miracles was propagated all along the decades after they had supposedly happened.
See Matthew 20:30-34; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43.
Mark, who wasn’t a disciple at the time of this miracle managed to find the name of his blind man, Bartimaeus the son of Timaeus.
Luke leaves the blind anonymous for fear of Mark’s mistake.
Luke had heard the story from anonymous eyewitnesses themselves, therefore avoided any possible complications for his sources.
In Matthew the blind men (two) cried out “O Lord, thou son of David”, whereas in Mark and Luke the one blind man cried out “Jesus, thou son of David.”
In Matthew Jesus touched the two men’s eyes, and said no words, whereas in Mark and Luke he pronounced two different sentences.
In Mark he says: “Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole”, and in Luke he says: “Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.”
Therefore, we have here likewise in many other passages proof that NOTHING is genuine in matters biblical.
Sure enough the Bible exegetes arrive in droves to rearrange the text and pronounce the most incongruent disparities to find a divine way to harmonize the conflicting texts, but we already knew that “science” from the very second century, when other tried but failed.
They failed because it is already the twenty first century and those harmonizers have not yet finished the job.
If you have to believe the Bible, please, believe only what is positive and gracious, the rest discard; it is a sound policy and acceptable doctrine.
Yet, the main point about miracles of giving sight to blind based on a divine principle of love and mercy doesn’t hold even a drop of water, for why wouldn’t God demonstrate the same mercy to all?
Why is it that if we had not discovered the remedy for many diseases no God would appear to help us?
Jesus didn’t even wash his hands before eating (Matthew 15); there is no record in the four gospels of him ever taking a bath; or wiping his backside after defecating, which is today regarded as the ancient reason for many contagious diseases, which Jesus also transmitted to others, I’m sure.
When he imposed his hands on children, who knows if the next week they wouldn’t be dying in bed with some influenza or other viruses?!
But, surely, the most important of all rhetorical questions directed at God is the “WHY” wouldn’t God protect our sight from enemy attack when there appeared in the world the very first blind man?
If love conquers all, according to some other scripture, God missed very badly the unique opportunity to be worshiped in sprit and in truth.
We would be a blessed species, enjoying this world and its life-giving pleasures and would be happy for evermore.
...
The End.