Lest We Forget

The BBC has a depressing but important reminder of the level of barbarism that the Christians unleashed on the world.

Luis de Carvajal was a jew. When the Christians caught him (not being a Christian was a crime, of course), they tortured him, and then tortured his mother in the next cell so that he could hear her screams. They murdered 120 of his fellow jews based on the information they had extracted from him, torturing each of them in turn.

This was not a freak, one-off incident. It happened in the "New World" where Christians killed literally millions of men, women, and children who their imaginary god did nothing to protect from their unspeakable evil.

No pagan deity ever oversaw this level of hate and pain in their name, yet we are told that Christ brought light to a darkened world. 

I think not.

(Not) Waiting for Allah

The strange thing about the people who are being called Islamic State, and all similar Christian, Jewish, Hindu or whatever fanatics is their lack of faith in their god. Clearly Allah could, if it existed as they imagine it, wipe Paris from the face of the Earth before breakfast, and certainly wouldn't have to wait 2000 years to knock down an old deserted temple somewhere.

Fanatics are just a type of theology student gone bad (or at least, worse): they know what their god wants done but they just can't quite trust "god" to get the job done in its own; they have to hurry the plan up. Which is fair enough in some ways, since no god has done in fact ever done anything anywhere in the whole of history or beyond. The reality is that gods are just puppets being moved by the strings of their worshippers.

God didn't knock that glass of water over, you did.

So don't pray for Paris. Never pray. Never grovel in the dirt to some misbegotten fantasy character in some crummy old book that promises justice or revenge or peace. Paris will do just fine without the paper help of paper gods.

An Indian Upon God

I passed along the water's edge below the humid trees,
My spirit rocked in evening light, the rushes round my knees,
My spirit rocked in sleep and sighs; and saw the moorfowl pace
All dripping on a grassy slope, and saw them cease to chase
Each other round in circles, and heard the eldest speak:
Who holds the world between His bill and made us strong or weak
Is an undying moorfowl, and He lives beyond the sky.
The rains are from His dripping wing, the moonbeams from His eye.
I passed a little further on and heard a lotus talk:
Who made the world and ruleth it, He hangeth on a stalk,
For I am in His image made, and all this tinkling tide
Is but a sliding drop of rain between His petals wide.
A little way within the gloom a roebuck raised his eyes
Brimful of starlight, and he said: The Stamper of the Skies,
He is a gentle roebuck; for how else, I pray, could He
Conceive a thing so sad and soft, a gentle thing like me?
I passed a little further on and heard a peacock say:
Who made the grass and made the worms and made my feathers gay,
He is a monstrous peacock, and He waveth all the night
His languid tail above us, lit with myriad spots of light.

W. B. Yeats 

Stop Press: No One Wins Nobel Economics Prize

Yet again, press reports that someone has won the Nobel prize for economics are misguided. There is no such prize. There is a prize given by a bunch of bankers which, in typically dishonest banking style, they named after Nobel despite it having no connection with the fund that he set up to reward actual scientific progress.

This prize is handed out every year to which ever political economist (to give the field it's full name) has managed to publish work which most defends the status quo of the banking world. This is generally done by choosing a political stance and then finding a mathematical model which, by dint of ignoring everything that doesn't neatly fit, seems to give a "scientific" reason for why the real economy must actually work that way, thereby giving support to unelected advisers to dim-witted politicians who want the world to be run that way (and by a sheer coincidence, line their own pockets).

This years arsehole is a bloke called Angus Deaton who has been lauded for saying what the rich always like to hear: success is down to hard work and you don't want to stop people from working hard, now do you?

Of course, success is largely down to luck. The world is full of people working so hard that it kills them and who die in poverty. Birth (starting with the big one: country of birth) is by far the biggest element in success, followed by the ability to eject all morality as soon as it becomes inconvenient. Unlimited greed helps too. Basically, everything the Tory party (whether as part of the Conservatives or Labour) stands for. Angus acknowledges that he himself was lucky (more specifically, that his father was) but is careful not to say that this luck is more important than his presumably amazingly hard work sitting at a desk and thinking about stuff that he will never have to prove or even really defend in any serious (ie, job-threatening) way.

Angus has never been poor in his entire life but he's happy to tell us why other people are poor and how we can fix that - mainly by making money for ourselves and sharing the crumbs. No wonder the banks thought he should get a prize.

Pictures or it didn't happen

Apparently dead children only exist if someone photographs them and shares it on Facebook and Twitter. Foolishly, I though that all the children that had died as a result of the Syrian crisis were equally tragic. I'm just old fashioned that way, I guess.

Chapter 11: Devil Take the Hindmost

So, let's talk about John the Baptist again, shall we? It's been, oh, pages since we last did.

When I started on this read-through of the so-called Gospel of Luke, I was not expecting this sort of thing. I knew that, at best, Jesus was a composite figure who might be partly based on a real person but was probably mostly myth, fiction, and post-facto rationalisations of OT predictions that had to be made to come true. I didn't expect to find so much blatant admission that Jesus's story was based on another specific person.

This chapter opens with C trying to explain why Jesus's followers use a prayer similar to that which other Christians - non-Jesus following Christians - apparently already associated with John the Baptist.

Chapter 11

And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. 

And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
Give us day by day our daily bread.

And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

This sort of thing is almost enough to make me give up on the whole account. What is there about Jesus that actually marks him out as distinct from John? Even being resurrected isn't unique to one or other of them, at least in the view of some of C's contemporaries. They have the same background, the same outlook, the same sort of "party structure" and teaching methods, even the same extended family. Yet we're told in all the Gospels that the stories about John pre-date those about Jesus. Why should we even bother continuing to read about this Jesus bloke; when clearly the person we should be investigating is John and whether he existed or not? Oh well. Onwards we plod.

And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves;

For a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him?
And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee. 

I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth. 

And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. 

For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Sounds nice. There is an underlying question, though, of what actually counts as seeking something. We've been told by C's Jesus that one can get to the Kingdom of Heaven by virtue of faith, or love, and now by simply knocking on the door (which implies faith, certainly, but also something more). As a specific example, what is Jesus saying happens to children who die young? They can't be admitted automatically, as that would have to apply equally to, say, Jews who have never heard of Jesus - which is most of them at this point. So do they have to "seek" something beyond having faith in the god that their parents told them about? It's a question that Christians never really managed to answer and instead resort to classifying it as invalid in various ways.

The issue of asking continues into the next part:

If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

I think the answer there, Jesus, is going to be "no". Not unless the father has Alzheimer's or something. 

Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

I'm not sure I'd trust anyone that even managed to think of that.

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

The word translated as "evil" here is πονηροι - poneros. This is actually quite a difficult word to translate and a slightly better attempt, I think, would be "If ye then, being mired in evil, know..." with a hint of "tainted" about it too. The evil here is something imposed on the listener as an inescapable part of living in a world which is ruled, as previously mentioned, by Satan and all his little devil helpers. So it's a little more generous to the listener than it seems at first reading, as well as being another part of C's whole picture of a mundane world which is ripe for being cleaned out in some sort of apocalyptic act. Because everything in it is touched by this evil. For example:

And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.

But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.
And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.

But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. 

If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub. 

And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.

Again, C can not avoid the issue that he's not really claiming anything new for this Jesus character. Other people are casting devils out too and he doesn't say that they're doing anything wrong. So casting out devils is not in itself a sign of being the messiah, apparently. In fact, as we know today only too well, it's big business and must have been even moreso in the days before TV and The Amazing Randi to expose the fraudsters who practise this sort of deception.

But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. 

When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: 

But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.

He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.

And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.

Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

I've struggled with this bit of text. It seems to be saying that casting devils out is pointless as all you're doing is making a clean home for them to come back to with their mates. Of course, the only reason I'm struggling with it is because I'm trying to make it fit with everything else. But, really, the language is quite clear - the palace or house is a possessed person. The strong man is a devil who is thrown out by the faith-healer but after wandering around a while, the devil returns with a gang of others and re-inhabits the nicely cleaned house.

Chucked into the middle of it is the line "He that is not with me is against me" which has caused a lot of trouble, and can go on the pile along with "he that is not against is is for us" back in chapter 9 as just one more contradiction.

Anyway, the interpretations I've read that try to fit this passage into some coherent frame are unconvincing and my view is that it's actually another statement about the approaching end of the world; if it doesn't come soon all Jesus's work will be undone. And, looking at Syria today you could argue that he had a point.

And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Jesus just can't stand anyone saying anything nice about Mary, can he?

And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.

For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.

The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

Queen of the South are currently trailing Rangers on goal difference. Just sayin'. 

The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

None of these last few verses sound like anything anyone other than an egomaniac would say, do they? They sound a lot like something someone talking about someone else would say. Someone who's a bit careless in drawing parallels with Jonas who, after all, didn't bring the world to an end.

No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.

Bit more ego.

The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.

Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness. 

This is drivel.

If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.

And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat.

Yes, because the Pharisees liked nothing more than to dine with people who constantly criticised them.

And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.

And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.

"I just thought maybe you'd want to wash your hands since we don't use cutlery."

Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?

"Yes, but you've been out and about all day and your hands are bound to have some dirt on them. It's not sanitary."

But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.

"I honestly don't think you can 'cast out' dirt, Jesus. I mean, just some water won't hurt, will it? We can drop some mint in it and then your hands will smell nice too."

But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

"Look, all I said was, 'would you like to wash your hands first?'"

Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets.

"Okay. Shall we just tuck in, then? Eh? What do you say, Jesus? I'd love to debate this, honestly, but the wife's gone to a lot of trouble, really."

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them.

"Oh, bloody hell."

Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also.

"Shit! Don't say that!" *frantically kicks lawyer under the table*

And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.

Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. 

Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: 

That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 

From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

"Okay, well, I see your point. More wine?"

Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

"Oh, for fu..."

And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:

Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

The point of Jesus's ranting here is to set up the crucifixion later. The Pharisees are accused of having a habit of simply killing all Jehovah's prophets (which isn't true on several levels) and that that makes the Pharisees living today guilty (which is unfair and unjust) and implies that they will crucify Jesus too (which, in the end, they don't). Even within the context of the book itself, this is complete bollocks and nothing more than a thin attempt to rope in OT stories as "evidence" that Jesus was the Ultimate Prophet. The stories in question actually have no connection to this load of badly written hogwash.

Additionally, the whole setting here is anachronistic and unbelievable - the Pharisees would have been natural allies, not enemies, at that time, and who would sit through this sort of ranting from a dinner guest. Plus, the story ends with the note that this marked the start of the Pharisees's attempts to trap Jesus, which contradicts not only previous mentions of the same thing, but the underlying assumption of this very scene which is that Jesus already hates the Pharisees and, having already dined with them, they are bound to be aware of that.

Never invite Jesus around for tea. That's my tip.

Long hiatus here, but I will be back to finish this.

Chapter 10: Jesus Conquers the World (but no one notices)

In chapter 10 the narrative spins off into a parallel universe where teams of unnamed apostles spread out and command demons and/or devils and are immune to the venom of scorpions and snakes. Needless to say, many later would-be apostles have died as a result of this chapter, although some canny ones have managed to take the advice slightly less literally and gradually built up immunity to snake bites by "carefully" exposing themselves over time to larger doses. They're still nutters, but they're not stupid nutters!

By now the 1st century Jewish world-view should be fairly apparent. Lacking any real scientific understanding (unlike their Greek neighbours), the Jews had invented a cosmology where the world was in a state of total domination by Satan, from whom all diseases originated via intermediary spirits (devils). This layer of misery is heaped on top of an older view that saw plain misfortune as something that Jehovah sent to those he was displeased with, such as Saul who's visit to the Witch of Endor resulted in him being told off by Samuel. The book of Job expresses the belief that Satan only acted at the direction of Jehovah and that he, Satan, could be sympathetic to his victims (which, in fact, the serpent of Eden was too).

The problem with this model is that it fails to explain why bad things happen to innocent people such as children in any convincing way - something that Christianity has never managed to explain to the satisfaction of anything more mentally developed than a mollusc. So what passed for philosophy among the Jews of the post-exile period developed a new model.

The newer view seems to have been that at some point Jehovah turned his back on people and the world he had created. Why is unclear, what with being omniscient and making that promise to Noah and all. Into the resulting power vacuum stepped a new version of Satan who was far from sympathetic to the human race and operated not only his old regime of bad luck, but also gained the characteristics of a god of disease.

The story of Jesus that C is telling is one of overthrowing this earthly kingdom of pain by a man who preaches that, even after that revolution, the world is very much second prize compared to the Kingdom of God. Once again, the contradictions are palpable - if that's the case, why not just have a big old rapture now? What, actually, is the point of the pantomime execution and all the rest of it? Christian belief centres on this redemption but it's not all all clear what the moral basis is for even saying that most people needed it nor why the death of the Messiah would make any difference to the sins of people who never met him.

Well, on with the show:

Chapter 10

After these things the LORD appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

So there's 41 pairs of heralds (if the original 12 are included) and, by implication, 41 cities and places where Jesus is going to go. That's quite a lot for such a tiny area. It's odd that no one recorded his activities, really, when he must have gone to every seat of literature in the place where many people interested in the possibility of a messiah (friendly or not to the idea) would have lived and written. Not so odd if it never happened, of course.

Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.

Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.

And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house.

"Peace be to this house", or close variations of it, are still used by Gypsies today. Which is sort of nice, I think. There's worse things to say when you visit someone you don't know.

And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.

And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:

And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,

Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

This is a subtle reference to the story of Jeremiah and a previous destruction of Jerusalem. In that story, Jehovah granted that if he could find a single good man in the whole city, that Jehovah would spare it (famously, he could not). Logically, that is the situation here. If the apostles find a single house that accepts them and their message, they are to stop there and freeload for a while and then leave the "city"; there is no need to go from house to house. If they can't find anyone who will take them in, they are to leave the city to its fate. And what will that fate be? Total destruction, of course!

What a nice guy. The take away message is that whether a sinner lives or dies is not necessarily down to their own reaction to preaching but to the luck of the draw as to whether or not some Christians live nearby. Murderer A is slain because he lives with other murderers; murderer B survives because there's a single Christian living just inside the city gates. In the long run, of course, we're all dead so maybe it doesn't matter.

But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

C's stitching together material again and once more fails to cover the joins. Bethsaida is so hopelessly mired in sin that even "mighty works" (i.e., miracles)  have not led to a single person converting to the cause. But in just the previous chapter, we were told that at least 5000 people came out of the city to listen to Jesus before they were miraculously fed with the loaves and fishes. Is C really suggesting that such interested people were actually turned off Jesus's message by his demonstration? Or has a completely different account, that has no successful miracle event at Bethsaida just been dropped in here? Hmmm.

But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you.

And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.

This is just some distant person's list of well-known towns, really. There's no attempt to connect it with the earlier accounts of Jesus going into Capernaum where "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." (chapter 7). As folklore, this is typical. As supposedly great literature and biography it is worthless.

He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

There's a break here. Jesus was addressing the cities but now he's addressing someone else. Possibly this verse should be moved down a couple so that he's talking to the returning horde of apostles.

And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.

And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

That's the only place they're written; we have only a handful of names who might be from this group. It's not clear if they are included under the heading of "disciples" or not from this point on; it seems unlikely but it is the case that the next portion of Jesus's supposed private conversation may or may not be addressed to 62 people:

In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

What a mess. Jesus is saying that wise and prudent people have been deceived. Aside from being more "mystery cult" nonsense, it's just plain old-fashioned nonsense. If you've missed something this important how can you be wise? And what's Jehovah's motivation to hide it from them? Terrible, terrible crap writing. If anything shows "Jesus" to be a hollow mask covering juvenile wish-fulfilment, it's this section of "they think they're so smart, but we'll show them" diarrhoea.

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see:

For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

Apparently we're not in a private meeting anymore. Although this sort of jump is annoying, it is partly just the result of how the books of the NT were written down. They tended to be just one big wall of text, with very little punctuation even in the loosest sense, and certainly no signs of the verses that we routinely reference. So it is inevitable that strange breaks like this happen from time to time. Unfortunately, it's not always obvious when the scene has changed.

He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

The word "justify" here is a tricky one. It is translated into English from various words all over the ancient world; it's commonly used in translating inscriptions of the Egyptian Pharaohs, for example, and reached the heights of the UK music charts when Justified and Ancient, written and performed by Tammy Wynette and the KLF (Kopyright Liberation Front [one of whom was Jimmy Cauty who drew probably the most successful Lord of the Rings poster before Peter Jackson murdered the books]) hit the #2 spot.

In this sense, it is about making sure that your life passes whatever tests are required after you die. You must show that you were clean, or innocent, of sin. The English translation carries this sense of having to justify your actions in life before some cosmic judge.

I mention all this because it casts an uncertain light on what follows, which is probably the best known parable in the NT - the Good Samaritan. The word has always bothered me because it combines with something else that feels wrong — the story seems too simple. Most of the parables by C have a predictable subtext of "Bad Jew ignores Jesus, nice Greek accepts Jesus; world ends; Jew goes to Hell, Greek goes to Heaven" but this one seems to be all surface. Except that word "justify" sits at the start and suggests that the story is about facing that cosmic judge where the lawyer will learn the answer to his original question of whether he will have eternal life. Let's read the story in that light:

And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Starting at the end of the parable, the Samaritan is clearly Jesus - the person who rescues the man from the consequences of sinful ways, pays for their healing and promises that he will come again and the reward will be unlimited. The identity of the host and the inn are a little less obvious but maybe represent the mundane world and society at large. The suffering man comes from Jerusalem and goes to Jericho, from the city of the law to the city of Jehovah's wrath. So the man's role seems to be that of the law itself, which is the topic of conversation at the table, as well as that of the potential convert.

The thieves are shady but I expect them to represent Jews who, in C's eyes, followed the letter of the law while stripping it of its meaning and spirit, leaving it "half dead". The priests and Levites (a traditionally priestly tribal line) can not be expected to rescue the law, so an outsider arrives. As previously mentioned, Samaritans were regarded as outcasts because they (like the pagan Greeks) worshipped more than one deity.

So we have all the elements of a typical C parable: the bad Jews ignore the meaning of the law; Jesus fixes up the broken law in the guise not of a Greek but of a similar outsider; the law (and the person who has kept faith with the law) is saved and later is literally redeemed when Jesus comes back. The point about "which was the neighbour" is that there's no point looking for help from the Jews; they've become a bunch of thieves and hypocrites, a point repeatedly made elsewhere in the book. If the lawyer wants to justify himself before Jehovah, he must reject the Jews and embrace the new testament of Jesus.

The framing device of the meal at the table allows C to show Jesus as once again outsmarting those cunning Jews who, despite constantly inviting Jesus into their houses, feeding him, and having fairly civil philosophical conversations with him are nonetheless both always trying to trip him up and also being convinced by his answers.

Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.

And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.

But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.

And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:

But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

More creepy Jesus and his harem; I think we can all guess which "good part" Mary had chosen. Martha represents those people who think tomorrow will come; they do the dishes and bake bread etc. but don't worry about the state of their souls — that can wait. Mary knows that the judgement day could happen at any time, so she attends to her soul by listening to Jesus. But Jesus still needs the bread that Martha is baking. As Dorothy Parker said:

Drink and dance and laugh and lie,

Love, the reeling midnight through,

For tomorrow we shall die! 

(But, alas, we never do.) 

Christians have been hoping for the return of their non-existent Christ for 2000 years; it's still "just around the corner".

At least we didn't have to talk about John the Baptist again.