Loftus Atheist Error #1: Intro: “Why [He] Became an Atheist”

Last updated on: September 8, 2019 at 3:42 pm By Dave Armstrong

I first ran across former Christian minister and atheist John W. Loftus back in 2006. We dialogued about the problem of evil, and whether God was in time. During that period I also replied to an online version of his deconversion: which (like my arguments about God and time) he didn’t care for at all. I’ve critiqued many atheist deconversion stories, and maintain a very extensive web page about atheism. In 2007 I critiqued his “Outsider Test of Faith” series: to which he gave no response. Loftus’ biggest objection to my critique of his descent into atheism was that I responded to what he called a “brief testimony.” He wrote in December 2006 (his words in blue henceforth):

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . . I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . . Do you accept my challenge?

I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:

If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I’d be more than happy to critique it. I won’t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . . You railed against that, saying that it was a “handout.” I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.

Throughout August 2019, I critiqued Dr. David Madison, a prominent contributor to Loftus’ website, Debunking Christianity, no less than 35 times. As of this writing, they remain completely unanswered. I was simply providing (as a courtesy) links to my critiques underneath each article of Dr. Madison’s, till Loftus decided I couldn’t do that (after having claimed that I “hate” atheists and indeed, everyone I disagree with). I replied at length regarding his censorship on his website. Loftus’ explanation for the complete non-reply to my 35 critiques was this: “We know we can respond. It’s just that we don’t have the time to do so. Plus, it’s pretty clear our time would be better spent doing something else than wrestling in the mud with you.” He also claimed that Dr. Madison was “planning to write something about one or more of these links in the near future.” Meanwhile, I discovered that Dr. Madison wrote glowingly about Loftus on 1-23-17:

When the history of Christianity’s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.

This was underneath an article where Loftus claimed: “I’ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it.” I hadn’t realized that Loftus had single-handedly managed to accomplish the stupendous feat of vanquishing the Hideous Beast of Christianity (something the Roman Empire, Muslims, Communists, and many others all miserably failed to do). Loftus waxed humbly and modestly ten days later: “I cannot resist the supposition that my books are among the best. . . . Every one of my books is unique, doing what few other atheist books have done, if any of them.”

These last three cited statements put me “over the edge” and I decided to buy a used copy of his book, Why I Became an Atheist (revised version, 2012, 536 pages) and critique it, as he wanted me to do in 2006. Moreover, on 8-27-07 he made a blanket challenge about the original version of this book: “I challenge someone to try this with my book. I might learn a few things, and that’s always a goal of mine. Pick it up and deal with as many arguments in it that you can. Deal with them all if you can.” His wish is granted (I think he will at length regret it), and this will be my primary project (as a professional apologist) in the coming weeks and probably months.

Despite all his confident bluster, I fully expect him to ignore my critiques. It’s what he’s always done with me (along with endless personal insults). I’m well used to empty (direct) challenges from atheists, based on my experience with Madison and “Bible Basher” Bob Seidensticker, who also has ignored 35 of my critiques (that he requested I do). If Loftus (for a change) decides to actually defend his views, I’m here; always have been. And I won’t flee for the hills, like atheists habitually do, when faced with substantive criticism.

The words of John Loftus will be in blue.

*****

I shall now make some replies to the Introduction (pp. 11-18 in the 2012 revised paperback).

In every chapter I have added to and strengthened my case, sometimes significantly. . . . In other words, it’s a much better book. (p. 11)

Excellent. Maybe this is the ultimate reason — in God’s providence — that I didn’t reply to the original edition. It was to be revised and improved twice. And I want to take on the best arguments that Loftus and atheists have to offer.

Unlike some skeptics who think that Christianity has been debunked so many times before that it’s now time to ridicule it, I still treat it respectfully. (p. 11)

That’s utterly apparent in his comment in his article dated 1-23-17: “I’ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it.” Looks like his views have, um, “evolved” since 2012. Lots of “respect” there, huh?

[B]elievers who honestly want to know if their faith is true should read the works of those who don’t think it is. You owe it to yourself to read firsthand what someone like me has to say.

Yep. That’s what I’m doing. But I’m a professional apologist, with 38 years’ experience of intense and committed apologetics, including long and extensive interaction with atheist anti-theist polemics. If the average (often woefully theologically uneducated) Christian is to do so, I think it is wise and sensible that they read both sides simultaneously.

And of course, that is what I provide in my dialogues (and articles like this series), with massive input from my dialogue opponents. Only then is it fair and not a stacked deck. Then they can exercise their critical faculties to decide who presents a better and more plausible case. Loftus agrees that such a person should also read the Christian apologists too.

I would turn the tables on this sentiment and also note that it works both ways. To use his framework and switch it around: “atheists who honestly want to know if their rejection of Christianity is correct should read the works of those who don’t think it is. You owe it to yourself to read firsthand what an experienced Christian apologist who responds to your own challenge by critiquing point-by-point — which you claim that you welcome — has to say.”

Loftus talks a good game and would seem to agree with this in principle. But the proof’s in the pudding, isn’t it? The “pudding” is how he reacts when he starts to observe the scores of articles that will be in this series: vigorously but cordially taking on his best arguments, instead of fawning over them as unquestionable Gospel Truth: as he is treated on his own website among his fan club and echo chamber (the “choir”).

If he follows his own noble, high-minded rhetoric about open-mindedness and evidence, etc., he would necessarily have to interact. But if those are mere empty words, only for show, he won’t. Time will tell! I’ll be reporting as to how he has responded or not, as I go along.

Loftus describes (pp. 14-15) how he started out Catholic, then moved through the positions of fundamentalist, moderate, liberal, deist, agnostic, an atheist, and that in the book he “roughly” focuses on evangelical Christianity.

Duly noted. I was an enthusiastic evangelical for 13 years and maintain my great admiration for that sector of Christianity, notwithstanding the usual principled disagreements that a Catholic would have, so that works for me. I will be incorporating Catholic distinctives in this series only where absolutely necessary to make a needed and effective counter-argument that Protestants would disagree with. This is my standard policy in dealing with atheist arguments.

Some of these chapters contain philosophical arguments while others are biblical in nature. (p. 15)

Cool! I love both, so this will be a good mixture.

I present a cumulative case argument against Christianity. (p. 15)

That’s exactly how I view my body of apologetics (50 books and over 2500 blog articles) in favor of Christianity and (in particular) the collection of diverse argumentation I have set forth in critique of atheism.

I consider this book to be one single argument against Christianity, and as such it should be evaluated as a whole. (p. 15; his italics)

This is precisely what I am doing. Obviously, most people wouldn’t have either the time or motivation (even if they had the ability) to deal in such comprehensiveness with a 536-page book, and I highly doubt that anyone has done so, for these reasons. But I have all those things — by God’s grace –, as a full-time apologist.

Loftus notes (pp. 15-16) that many Christian professors have struggled with significant doubts and crises of faith.

This comes as no big news flash. We’re well aware of that and most of us (including myself, but only very rarely, by God’s grace) experience it, to various degrees. St. Teresa of Calcutta (Mother Teresa) had long and agonizing stretches of the “dark night of the soul.” So have many other Christians. C. S. Lewis (in the view of most Christians, the greatest apologist of the 20th century) wrote almost an entire book about it (A Grief Observed). The book of Job is devoted to this very thing.

This is one major reason why apologists like myself do what we do: we grapple with the doubts and objections seek to provide acceptable and plausible answers or solutions to them. We help Christians to have a stronger faith, to know and to be able to defend their faith (1 Peter 3:15) and “survive” objections such as those that Loftus will be hurling throughout his book.

Atheists tend to view us apologists (to put it mildly) as mere rationalizers, sophists, and special pleaders (i.e., fundamentally dishonest), but what we do is every bit as intellectually honest and legitimate as what Loftus feels he is doing in this book. He is sincerely arguing a perspective of doubt against Christianity, and we are sincerely maintaining that Christianity is both true and rational, and can be fully, confidently accepted by “modern, civilized, scientifically literate people”: the same ones whom he claims ought to reject it (p. 15).

It’s all about (in apologetics and atheist anti-theist polemics) the arguments and their relative strength. Bring them on! I am interacting, and will with counter-replies. But we don’t know yet how Loftus will react.

The major reason why I have become an atheist is because I could not answer the questions I was encountering. (p. 17; italics his)

One of the major reasons why I became an apologist is to offer solid Christian answers to questions such as these, that are causing some folks (like John Loftus) to lose faith and to forsake Christianity.

***

Photo credit: John Loftus at SASHAcon 2016 at the University of Missouri; Mark Schierbecker (3-19-16) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

Biblical Hyperbole, Masturbation, & Intransigent Atheists

Last updated on: September 3, 2019 at 11:09 am By Dave Armstrong

Atheist and former Christian Acalibre commented on my paper, Masturbation: Thoughts on Why it is as Wrong as it Ever Was., and I replied. His words will be in blue.

*****

Why stop there, Dave? In Matthew 5.30, where he’s speaking in an entirely sexual context, Jesus advocates cutting off one’s right hand if it ‘offends’ you. He’s clearly talking about masturbation, as well as other sexual sins. You ignore him at your peril; he wouldn’t have issued this command if he hadn’t meant it.

Learn about biblical hyperbole. Here’s some help for you to do that.

I like that Jesus words are always hyperbole or metaphor when you don’t like what he’s saying. I guess ‘treat others as you like to be treated’, ‘go the extra mile’, ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘give to all who ask’ are similarly hyperbolic and can also be safely dismissed.

That’s how you see it. In fact, there are such literary genres and figures and one can intelligently determine when they are present in Scripture. It takes study, and people like you have no interest in that if it establishes traditional Christianity and morals (it goes against your agenda), so you simply bloviate without knowledge, as you have done.

No, I simply ask you how you know when Jesus is speaking metaphorically or hyperbolically and when he should be taken literally; how do you distinguish?

Surely the one who said to have faith like a child does not expect years of study simply to know when to take him seriously.

That’s a completely different thing. He was saying (proverbially), “be trusting of God, rather than always being cynical and questioning, as is too often the case with adults.” It’s a different principle from the notion of studying Scripture in order to better understand it.

We have to study more because we are in a “rationalistic, post-“Enlightenment” Greek-influenced, post-scientific culture, whereas the Bible was written in a pre-scientific, pre-philosophical, agricultural, Hebrew, ancient near eastern culture, rich with poetry and non-literal literary devices and expressions. Because we think very differently than they do, we have to learn about their culture and how they thought and wrote. They were not “stupid” and “primitive”: as atheists are always making them out to be: just different and further back in time.

They thought very differently, for example about time and chronology, and had notions such as “block logic” (very unfamiliar to us in our culture and ways of thinking today): both of which I have written about.

To the casual observer it does indeed seem that when believers like yourself don’t like what Jesus is telling you to do, you decide he’s using hyperbole, and when he’s not placing too much of a demand on you he can be taken literally. Demonstrate how this is not the case: are commands like ‘go the extra mile’ and ‘turn the other cheek’ hyperbole or not? And how do you know?

Those two are proverbial: which are general exhortations that hold in a broad sense, but which allow exceptions. I recently wrote about “turn the other cheek”.

We know by becoming familiar with the different forms of non-literal expression in biblical times. It’s through practice and study. And by cross-referencing.

So, for example, I was writing about how Jesus said, “if you don’t hate your family, you’re not worthy of me.” This is hyperbole: the extreme contrast. But in another Gospel, Jesus gives the literal meaning, which is how the hyperbole is interpreted: “if you love your family more than me, you’re not worthy of me.”

And that brings to mind another principle of biblical interpretation: “Interpret the unclear or difficult verse in light of related ones that are more clear and more easily understood.”

We learn all this by studying Bible commentaries and linguistic aids, and the rules of hermeneutics and exegesis (Bible interpretation). At the link I provided (about hyperbole) is mentioned a book about figures in the Bible. I quote:

Bible scholar E. W. Bullinger catalogued “over 200 distinct figures [in the Bible], several of them with from 30 to 40 varieties.” That is a statement from the Introduction to his 1104-page tome, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London: 1898). I have this work in my own library (hardcover). It’s also available for free, online. Bullinger continues, in the Introduction [now I quote it directly]:

All language is governed by law; but, in order to increase the power of a word, or the force of an expression, these laws are designedly departed from, and words and sentences are thrown into, and used in, new forms, or figures.

The ancient Greeks reduced these new and peculiar forms to science, and gave names to more than two hundred of them.

The Romans carried forward this science . . .

These manifold forms which words and sentences assume were called by the Greeks Schema and by the Romans, Figura. Both words have the same meaning, viz., a shape or figure. . . .

Applied to words, a figure denotes some form which a word or sentence takes, different from its ordinary and natural form. This is always for the purpose of giving additional force, more life, intensified feeling, and greater emphasis.

[Bullinger devotes six pages (423-428) to “Hyperbole; or, Exaggeration”: which he defines as follows:]

The figure is so called because the expression adds to the sense so much that it exaggerates it, and enlarges or diminishes it more than is really meant in fact. Or, when more is said than is meant to be literally understood, in order to heighten the sense.

It is the superlative degree applied to verbs and sentences and expressions or descriptions, rather than to mere adjectives. . . .

It was called by the Latins superlatio, a carrying beyond, an exaggerating.

[I shall cite some of his more notable and obvious examples (omitting ellipses: “. . .” ):]

Gen. ii. 24. — “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.” This does not mean that he is to forsake and no longer to love or care for his parents. So Matt. xix. 5.

Ex. viii. 17. — “All the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt”: i.e., wherever in all the land there was dust, it became lice.

I Sam. xxv. 37. — Nabal’s “heart died within him, and he became as a stone”: i.e., he was terribly frightened and collapsed or fainted away.

I Kings i. 40. — “So that the earth rent with the sound of them.”

A hyperbolical description of their jumping and leaping for joy.Job xxix. 6. — “The rock poured me out rivers of oil”: i.e., I had abundance of all good things. So chap. xx. 17 and Micah vi. 7.

Isa. xiv. 13, — “I will ascend into heaven”: to express the pride of Lucifer.

Lam. ii. 11.— “My liver is poured upon the earth, etc”: to express the depth of the Prophet’s grief and sorrow at the desolations of Zion.

Luke xiv. 26. — “If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother”: i.e., does not esteem them less than me. So the verb to hate is used (Gen. xxix. 31. Rom. ix. 13).

John iii. 26. — “All men come to him.” Thus his disciples said to John, to show their sense of the many people who followed the Lord.

John xii. 19. — “Behold, the world is gone after him.” The enemies of the Lord thus expressed their indignation at the vast multitudes which followed Him.

Gary Amirault highlights more biblical examples in a similar article:

[T]is verse is a hyperbole, an exaggeration for effect:

“You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” (Matt. 23:24, NIV)

It is not too difficult to determine that this is a hyperbole, an exaggeration. Because the English language is full of Bible terms and phraseology, this Hebrew idiom has become part of the English language. Therefore most English speaking people know the real meaning of that phrase: “You pay close attention to little things but neglect the important things.” [Dave: or, “you can’t see the forest for the trees”]

However, here is a hyperbole that the average Bible reader may miss and formulate doctrine from which may end up being harmful to themselves and others.

“Everything is possible for him who believes.” (Mark 9:23b, NIV)

The Bible is full of exaggerations like the one above which are not to be taken literally. Careful attention, comparing scripture with scripture, knowing the Bible and its author thoroughly, making certain not to necessary apply things to ourselves which weren’t meant for us individually and some basics about the original languages are needed to prevent us from misinterpreting various scripture verses like this one. . . .

“If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out…” Matt. 5:29 (I met a Christian who actually tried to pluck out his right eye because he had a lust problem. This is an example the kind of problem a Bible translation can cause if one is not informed of the various figures of speech found in the Bible.)

[The literary device of antithesis, or contrast also seems more specifically applicable to the verse we are considering. Bullinger writes about this in his pages 715-718:]

A setting of one Phrase in Contrast with another.

. . . It is a figure by which two thoughts, ideas, or phrases, are set over one against the other, in order to make the contrast more striking, and thus to emphasize it. [footnote: “When this consists of words rather than of sentences, it is called Epanodos, and Antimetabole (q.v.).”]

The two parts so placed are hence called in Greek antitheta, and in Latin opposita and contraposita. . . .

It is called also contentio: i.e., comparison, or contrast. When this contrast is made by affirmatives and negatives, it is called Enantiosis, see below. The Book of Proverbs so abounds in such Antitheses that we have not given any examples from it.

***

I guess ‘treat others as you like to be treated’, ‘go the extra mile’, ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘give to all who ask’ are similarly hyperbolic and can also be safely dismissed.

These are not hyperbolic. The golden rule is literal ethical advice that applies to all situations. If we want to be treated lovingly, we should also do the same with other people. This is a principle present in virtually every ethical system in all times and places (as C. S. Lewis documented in his book, The Abolition of Man).

“Give to all who ask” is also a general ethical principle, but has a proverbial element in that it isn’t always literally possible to do so. The idea is that we should have a giving heart and be willing to help the less fortunate, insofar as we are possibly able to do so.

Clearly hyperbolic passages would be, for example:

Mark 11:23 (RSV) Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him.

Matthew 7:3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

‘Clearly’ they’re hyperbolic? How so? I thought knowing this involved study? Now it appears it’s self-evident.

I see. So you think Jesus talking about having a log in your eye is being literal, huh? How ridiculous are we gonna get?

Nevertheless, Jesus’ point is that with faith, seemingly impossible things are possible. Why don’t we see these things being realised by his followers today?

Many times we do witness extraordinary things. But people like you dismiss them out of hand, because you can’t allow the possibility that Christianity is true (having rejected it as an apostate). There are healings, but there are not always healings, and not healings at command, as if God were our genie.

And why, despite his other ‘literal ethical advice’ (‘advice’?), do we not see all Christians actually doing what he suggests? You’ve turned his words into mere textual exercise, his commands into optional bits of ‘advice’. Well done. As I suggested originally, you pick and choose what you accept on the basis of whether it’s easy or to your liking. The radical stuff you dismiss with quasi-intellectual sleight of hand.

I was speaking generically and in a certain sense when I used the description, “literal ethical advice.” I agree that that could be misunderstood (which is exactly what you did). But I never intended to imply at all that the Golden Rule was merely optional advice. Of course it is a binding command from Jesus. This is not arbitrary picking and choosing, as you charge. I simply was not as clear as I could have been.

As expected, you reject the explanation out of hand. It would make no sense from a purely rational, “understanding of literary genre” point of view, but it becomes more understandable in light of what the Bible says about the rebellious, atheist mind, which becomes “darkened” after a while (“they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools”: Romans 1:21-22, RSV).

I try to have a serious conversation and reply to your questions, which I assume were sincere, but you bring it right back down to mockery and foolishness. Why is that? From the Christian view, it is likely because of the following dynamic:

1 Corinthians 2:14 “The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”

2 Timothy 3:7 who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

***

Photo credit: KlausHausmann (10-4-15) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Atheist Loftus “Answers” & Censors My 34 Replies to Dr. Madison

Last updated on: September 6, 2019 at 12:25 pm By Dave Armstrong

Atheist apostate John Loftus is an author and webmaster of the website, Debunking Christianity, where Dr. David Madison (another atheist apostate and anti-theist) posts his articles: usually critiques of portions of Scripture or figures like Jesus and Paul. I have responded to now 34 of those articles of his, and simply posted the links underneath each article of Dr. Madison’s, as a courtesy, in case he wants to reply (which he has not done thus far). This was utterly unacceptable to webmaster Loftus, and he spoke with authority on 8-28-19, saying he will not put up with these outrages of courtesy any longer! (his words below will be in blue):

The Rules of Engagement At DC

By John W. Loftus at 8/28/2019

Some angry Catholic apologist has been tagging our posts with his angry long-winded responses. I know of no other blog, Christian or atheist, that allows for arguments by links, especially to plug one’s failing blog or site. I’ve allowed it for about a month with this guy but no more. He’s not banned. He can still come here to comment. It’s just that we don’t allow responses in the comments longer than the blog post itself, or near that. If any respectful person has a counter-argument or some counter-evidence then bring it. State your case in as few words as possible and then engage our commenters in a discussion. But arguments by links or long comments are disallowed. I talked with David Madison who has been the target of these links and he’s in agreement with this decision. He’s planning to write something about one or more of these links in the near future. So here’s how our readers can help. I’ve deleted a few of these arguments by link. There are others I’ve missed. If you see some apologist arguing by link flag it. Then I’ll be alerted where it is to delete it. What’s curious to me are the current posts he’s neglecting, like this one on horrific suffering. If he tackles that one I’ll allow him a link back.

*****

Here was my reply, posted there (if it is allowed to remain):

***

What a surprise. Funny, I was under the impression that it was common courtesy to let someone know that you offered a reply to their writing. I have not seen Dr. Madison’s email address listed, as far as I know (but I may have missed it). But for you, somehow that is “angry” and against your ethics. Duly noted.

From now on I’ll refute Dr. Madison’s arguments without letting him know. Hopefully, if Dr. Madison does actually reply to one of my counter-arguments (it’s now 34 with no reply), he will let me know. He’s more than welcome to post such a link on my blog. Thanks.

I’ve written on suffering and the problem of evil many times (posted on my atheist and philosophy & science web pages), since I regard it as the most serious objection to Christianity. In fact, my first interaction with you (John Loftus) was on this topic (“Dialogue w Atheist John Loftus on the Problem of Evil” [10-11-06] ).

The “angry” schtick is getting old real fast. Is that all you have in your arsenal anymore: a bald-faced lie? You were much more fun when you called me an “idiot!”

Lastly, few care about my replies to an atheist on my blog or my Facebook page. If my motive were simply to “plug [my supposedly] failing blog or site” this would be one of the last topics that would accomplish that. I get far more page views from writing anything about sex. This is not mere opinion. One can track actual page views at Patheos with Google Analytics.

When I look over the response for August, I indeed find that an article on masturbation received the most views, and more than twice as much as the #2 article, which was about a radical Catholic reactionary book. #3 was a paper about why C. S. Lewis didn’t become a Catholic. #4 and #5 were about holistic health (totally unrelated to apologetics). #6 is about how to receive Communion. #7 is another paper about masturbation, #8 (finally!) a reply to an atheist other than Dr. Madison. #9 is about Mary’s Immaculate Conception. #10 is about her Assumption. So that is one paper in the top ten devoted to atheism.

I have to get to #21 to even find one of the 34 replies to Dr. Madison (all written in August).

So much for your stupid theory. I’m not replying for hits or for money, but because I think it is a great opportunity to refute atheist polemics against Christianity. Period. This is what apologists do. I certainly make far less money than you do: ranting and raving and lying about Christianity and Christians.

*****

More comments that I also posted on Loftus’ site:

***

I looked up Loftus’ “Comment Policy.” I saw nothing about not being able to simply post a link to a reply to an article posted at Debunking Christianity. It starts out as follows (all emphases in the original in my citations):

At Debunking Christianity I welcome most anyone to comment on what is written. I like the challenge of educated discussions between educated people. I think educated people can disagree agreeably. Only people not fully exposed to alternative ways of thinking will claim their opponents are stupid merely because they disagree.

I agree 100%. If only Loftus and his cronies would act according to these noble ideals. Here’s another excerpt:

Unoriginality. Your comments should be your own thoughts, in your own words. When quoting relevant material, try to keep the excerpts brief. Don’t say the same thing over and over again.

I haven’t quoted anything (which I am allowed to do), in simply posting links to my replies, underneath the articles I was replying to. It seems to me that Dr. Madison and others (if they actually believed in and practiced the ideal expressed above) would enthusiastically welcome my “alternative ways of thinking” as a golden opportunity to defend the superiority of atheist views and shoot mine down. But no, instead we get this censorship, no interactive replies at all (though now we’re told that one or two are finally coming) and the ever-present double standard and juvenile insulting.

Preaching. Theist commenters are welcome, but bear in mind that atheists do not gather here just so that we can be more conveniently proselytized. Attempts to sermonize or recite apologetics at us are frowned upon. A good rule of thumb is that if you want to have a genuine conversation with us, you’re welcome to stay; if you only want to convert us, you can expect to be shown the door.

I haven’t done this at all. I am replying directly (mostly point-by-point) to posted material on this site. This is “genuine conversation.” But so far, it is entirely a one-way “conversation.” One of the parties ain’t interested in defending his own arguments (nor is — how pathetic — anyone else here). But it’s on the way, I’m told. I eagerly look forward to it!

Soapboxing. Related to both unoriginality and preaching, this occurs when a person has a pet cause which is the only thing they ever want to talk about, regardless of the topic of the thread. If all your comments keep coming back to the same point, you’re soapboxing. Don’t do this.

I’m obviously not doing this either, since I am directly responding to material at Debunking Christianity. Many of the arguments I have offered in so doing, I never even thought about before. They were stimulated by the arguments of Dr. Madison. This is the beauty of argument and interaction. Christian arguments have been encouraged and strengthened by opposing arguments since the beginning. I love it! So I have mostly enjoyed replying to Dr. Madison. He has been gracious enough to provide a steady supply of fallacious or non-factual argumentation that is the perfect stimulus for an apologist who specializes in the Bible.

Imperviousness to reason. I expect that people who debate here will show at least some responsiveness to arguments raised against their position. If your typical response to a counterargument is to repeat your original argument in unchanged form, your presence will soon grow tiresome. Acknowledge the things that other people say to you and respond accordingly.

Again, this is exactly what I am not doing, in replying point-by-point to material on the site. If I received such replies (which happens only rarely), I would be ecstatic at the golden opportunity to clarify and counter-reply, and retract where necessary. But the response of my atheist friends is to flee to the hills, insult, and censor. It’s one of life’s mysteries. But hypocrisy, in any event, is certainly not confined to Christians.

Lastly, it is highly ironic and ludicrous that when I first started responding to Dr. Madison, I came to Debunking Christianity and tried in vain to engage in intelligent discussion. But as almost always in atheist forums, the folks weren’t interested in that. It was 100% insults and mockery and not the slightest interaction with my actual arguments at all, as anyone can see in my paper that documented what happened.

It was a carbon copy of the behavior that occurred in August 2018: a year ago, on Bob Seidensticker’s website (I have refuted 35 of his papers, too). They had no interest in rational discussion, either; only in insults and lying, and I was also banned.

Once that happened, I concluded (as I always have, in despair) that genuine discussion of opposing ideas is impossible on an atheist forum. I was tempted to not even post the links to my replies anymore, and to adopt the attitude of “to hell with ’em.” But my courteous instincts prevailed; only to at length get the above reply from Loftus.

Very well, then. If I can’t have an intelligent discussion on his site or any atheist one that I’ve ever seen, then I’ll simply refute atheist materials (including those from Loftus) and not let anyone know that I’m doing it. Atheists whose writings I critique can do what I do: run across critical materials in Google searches (which I do since I am virtually never informed when someone counter-replies to me).

In fact, I ran across this very article from Loftus, by accident, as I was looking through Dr. Madison’s writings. John Loftus seemingly had no intention of making me aware of it. Loftus did “reply” to me earlier, when he saw that I was critiquing Dr. Madison, and made these two comments (do they sound like a willingness to interact with opposing ideas?):

What does it say that you have about 46 comments for your last 20 essays? Given your mean spirited attitude, one probable interpretation is that your headlines grab attention from the massive amount of readers attracted to Patheos. But when people see how you treat others they leave you to your anger. And you are angry. That is clear. You hate people who disagree with you, which actually proves Dr. Madison’s point, that Jesus wants you to hate others in deference to him. Readers see this quickly then they go away.

*

Your speech betrays you. I can get a bit angry when purposely misunderstood by self-proclaimed know-it-alls like you. But you enter a debate angry! You write as if Dr. David Madison is a non-entity, a non-being, who is mere fodder for your supposed “superior” debate skills. I cannot convince you of this I’m sure, but that’s what I see, and it’s one good reason I ignore you.

I replied with my paper, “Do I ‘Hate’ Atheists (or, Anyone)? Here’s the Record . . .”

What you’re doing is writing a book length response. Go ahead. Do that. We know we can respond. It’s just that we don’t have the time to do so. Plus, it’s pretty clear our time would be better spent doing something else than wrestling in the mud with you.

*****

And a third comment posted there:

***

As another Christian courtesy, I will go back and delete all my links posted here to replies to Dr. Madison, lest any atheist stumble, experience cognitive dissonance, or be scandalized and depressed by the horrific prospect of an amiable, non-“angry” expression of a different opinion [!!! gasp! shriek!] from a lowly, despised Christian apologist.

The Bible commands us, after all, not to do anything to make less confident folks stumble. I wouldn’t want to burst this blissful “bubble” you have made for yourselves, or to dissent from the groupthink that obviously reigns and dominates this echo chamber.

Thanks for letting me post this! How open-minded of you . . .

Thank you. One thing you should keep in mind is that wasting my time by having to explain my policies will get you banned. So what if I made an addition? Get over it.

I believe I zapped all of the horrifying, threatening links to my replies to Dr. Madison. If I missed one, please let me know and I’ll go delete it pronto. Thanks!

***

ADDENDUM (8-31-19) Without the slightest hint of the extreme and apparent (and pathetic) irony, Loftus put up a post on the same day, entitled, “Cameron Bertuzzi of “Capturing Christianity” Avoids Answering Questions.” Near the end, he states, “Your goal should be to answer their objections.” Man oh man, is this guy in a self-deluded bubble.

***

Photo credit: [Max Pixel / Creative Commons Zero – CC0]

***

David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #11: Chapter 12

Last updated on: August 26, 2019 at 2:08 pm By Dave Armstrong

Jesus Predicts His Passion & Death / Judgment Day / God’s Mercy / God as Cosmic Narcissist?

This is an installment of my replies to a series of articles on Mark by Dr. David Madison: an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University. His summary article is called, “Not-Your-Pastor’s Tour of Mark’s Gospel: The falsification of Christianity made easy” (Debunking Christianity, 7-17-19). His words will be in blue below.

Dr. Madison has utterly ignored my twelve refutations of his “dirty dozen” podcasts against Jesus, and I fully expect that stony silence to continue. If he wants to be repeatedly critiqued and make no response, that’s his choice (which would challenge Bob Seidensticker as the most intellectually cowardly atheist I know). I will continue on, whatever he decides to do (no skin off my back).

Dr. Madison believes we are not at all sure whether Jesus in fact said anything recorded in the Gospels. The atheist always has a convenient “out” (when refuted in argument about some biblical text) that Jesus never said it anyway and that the text in question was simply made up and added later by unscrupulous and “cultish” Christian propagandists.

I always refuse to play this silly and ultimately intellectually dishonest game, because there is no way to “win” with such a stacked, subjective deck. I start with the assumption (based on many historical evidences) that the manuscripts we have are quite sufficient for us to know what is in the Bible (believe it or not).

Dr. Madison himself — in his anti-Jesus project noted above, granted my outlook, strictly in terms of practical “x vs. y” debate purposes: “For the sake of argument, I’m willing to say, okay, Jesus was real and, yes, we have gospels that tell the story.” And in the combox: “So, we can go along with their insistence that he did exist. We’ll play on their field, i.e., the gospels.” Excellent! Otherwise, there would be no possible discussion at all.

*****

Dr. Madison called this installment: “‘Great’ Bible Texts…that Really Aren’t So Great: Extreme religion in disguise” (2-22-19).

Moreover, the cult was dead certain that Jesus would soon (not ‘any century now’) descend through the clouds to set up a Kingdom of God on earth reserved for the lucky few (the members of the cult) Everyone else would be killed off; that was Jesus’ view on how it would all unfold.

Really? How odd, then, that all these passages are in the Bible, from Jesus’ own lips. I see nothing about His quick (“soon”) return, followed by judgment (except for saying that He would rise again in three days, and allusions to His post-Resurrection appearances):

Matthew 16:21 (RSV) From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

Matthew 17:22-23 As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, [23] and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day.” And they were greatly distressed.

Matthew 20:17-19 And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, [18] “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death, [19] and deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.”

Matthew 26:1-2 When Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples, [2] “You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of man will be delivered up to be crucified.”

Matthew 26:31-32 Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, `I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ [32] But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.”

Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Mark 9:31 for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, “The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise.”

Mark 10:32-34 And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them; and they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, [33] saying, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles; [34] and they will mock him, and spit upon him, and scourge him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise.”

Mark 12:1-11 And he began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge around it, and dug a pit for the wine press, and built a tower, and let it out to tenants, and went into another country. [2] When the time came, he sent a servant to the tenants, to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. [3] And they took him and beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. [4] Again he sent to them another servant, and they wounded him in the head, and treated him shamefully. [5] And he sent another, and him they killed; and so with many others, some they beat and some they killed. [6] He had still one other, a beloved son; finally he sent him to them, saying, `They will respect my son.’ [7] But those tenants said to one another, `This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ [8] And they took him and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. [9] What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants, and give the vineyard to others. [10] Have you not read this scripture: `The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; [11] this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?”

Luke 9:22 . . . “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”

Luke 9:44 “Let these words sink into your ears; for the Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men.”

Luke 18:31-33 And taking the twelve, he said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written of the Son of man by the prophets will be accomplished. [32] For he will be delivered to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon; [33] they will scourge him and kill him, and on the third day he will rise.”

John 2:19-21 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” [20] The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” [21] But he spoke of the temple of his body.

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up,

John 8:28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, . . .

John 10:15, 17-18 . . . I lay down my life for the sheep. . . . [17] For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. [18] No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”

John 12:23-24 And Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. [24] Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

John 12:31-33 “Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out; [32] and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” [33] He said this to show by what death he was to die.

John 13:1 Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. (cf. 14:18-19, 27-29)

John 16:5 But now I am going to him who sent me; . . . (cf. 16:7, 16-22, 28; 17:13)

See also the excellent article, “Passion Predictions,” by Paul Zilonka, C.P.

I dealt with this nonsense that only a very very few would be saved, according to Jesus (like during Noah’s Flood), in my paper, Dr. David Madison vs. Jesus #3: Nature & Time of 2nd Coming.

But after Paul had departed the scene, the gospel writers took on the task of inventing the Jesus story, . . . Mark conjured the figure of Jesus that has become so familiar to us.

Oops! I forgot about that . . .

How does this [parable in Mark 12] square with Mark 4:10-12, where we read that Jesus told parables to prevent people from understanding his message.

Explained that here: Madison vs. Jesus #7: God Prohibits Some Folks’ Repentance?

As the next section of chapter 12 illustrates. Mark does not give his Jesus a lot of ethical teaching, but in verse 31 we find the ‘second’ great commandment: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But Mark’s primary concern in the final portion of this chapter is to coach the cult, explain what is expected of the followers. And here we find a demand (it’s called the first commandment) that is a marker of extreme religion:

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.”

Heart, soul, mind, strength. All. Focused on God. This is not the way even most believers function in the world—nor do they want to—and begs the question of why a self-sufficient god wants or needs unrestrained adoration. But cults thrive when people can be coaxed to this dark side; when they can be roped into zealotry. The reward promised by the Jesus cult was eternal life; but, as is usually the case, there must have been ego satisfaction for the cult leaders, including a propagandist like Mark.

The folks in the pews have been so used to hearing, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, yada, yada, yada,” in sermon and song, seeing it in stained glass and embroidery—well, don’t they just expect that sort of thing from the preacher? So it’s hard to notice just how jarring, how bizarre it really is.

I disposed of this hogwash, in my reply: Madison vs. Jesus #6: Narcissistic, Love-Starved God?

***

Dr. Madison’s critique of Mark 13 contains nothing new. He merely regurgitates fallacious arguments that I have already refuted in this series of rebuttals or the previous one. When he can’t come up with anything new, he recycles his trash. Likewise; his critiques of chapters 14-16 are primarily a reiteration of radical biblical skepticism (complete with ample citation from the intellectually suicidal Jesus mythicists): which I have explained in my standard introductions in this series (see above) why I won’t enter into. So this concludes my series of (total of eleven) rebuttals, as regards the Gospel of Mark.

***

Photo credit: The Flagellation of Our Lord Jesus Christ (1880), by William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #10: Chapter 11

Last updated on: March 19, 2022 at 1:14 pm By Dave Armstrong

Two Donkeys? / Fig Tree / Moneychangers

*****

Dr. Madison called this installment: “The Day Jesus Cursed a Fig Tree: …and followed the deed with bad theology” (1-25-19)

The theological agenda of the gospel authors included Jesus as a fulfillment of scripture—everybody knows that, right?—so they frequently quoted OT texts out of context.

Dr. Madison doesn’t, alas, tell us how he thinks Matthew cited Zechariah 9:9 out of context, so there is nothing here to refute. It’s simply one of his gratuitous and groundless swipes at Jesus and the Gospel writer.

Matthew failed to grasp the technique of the parallelism in Hebrew poetry (line 1: say something; line 2, say the same thing using a different word), and reports that Jesus rode on two animals, a donkey and a colt. (Matthew 21:7) Yes, Matthew could be that goofy . . .

Matthew does not report that Jesus rode on two animals. He wrote: “they brought the ass and the colt, and put their garments on them, and he sat thereon” (Mt 21:7, RSV). He can hardly have sat on (let alone ride) two animals at once. Does Dr. Madison think Matthew was trying to present Jesus as a circus stunt rider? How silly are we gonna get? There must be some other sensible meaning. But then, what does “them” mean in this verse? And why two animals? It does seem strange at first glance. Apologist Eric Lyons, in a comprehensive article on this very issue of the colt and the ass, writes:

Mark recorded that Jesus told the two disciples that they would find “a colt tied, on which no one has sat” (11:2). . . .

Mark, Luke, and John did not say that only one donkey was obtained for Jesus, or that only one donkey traveled up to Jerusalem with Jesus. The writers simply mentioned one donkey (the colt). They never denied that another donkey (the mother of the colt) was present. . . .

[W]hen Matthew’s gospel is taken into account, the elusive female donkey of Zechariah 9:9 is brought to light. Both the foal and the female donkey were brought to Christ at Mount Olivet, and both made the trip to Jerusalem. Since the colt never had been ridden, or even sat upon (as stated by Mark and Luke), its dependence upon its mother is very understandable (as implied by Matthew). The journey to Jerusalem, with multitudes of people in front of and behind Jesus and the donkeys (Matthew 21:8-9), obviously would have been much easier for the colt if the mother donkey were led nearby down the same road. . . .

Greek scholar A.T. Robertson believed that the second “them” (Greek αυτων) refers to the garments that the disciples laid on the donkeys, and not to the donkeys themselves. In commenting on Matthew 21:7 he stated: “The garments thrown on the animals were the outer garments (himatia), Jesus ‘took his seat’ (epekathisen) upon the garments” (1930, [Word Pictures in the New Testament], 1:167).

Two Bible translations, whose purpose is to provide an exceptionally literal rendering of the Greek biblical text: Amplified Bible and Wuest Expanded Translation, concur with this interpretation:

They brought the donkey and the colt and laid their coats upon them, and He seated Himself on them [the clothing].

And they placed upon them their outer garments. And He took His seat upon them [the garments].

New American Standard Bible also brings out this more specific meaning:

and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid on them their garments, on which He sat.

“On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. He said to it, ‘May no one ever eat fruit from you again.’ And his disciples heard it.”

D. E. Nineham, in his 1963 commentary, noted: “This story is one of the most difficult in the Gospels, for it approximates more closely than any other episode in Mark to the type of ‘unreasonable’ miracle characteristic of the non-canonical Gospel literature.” (p. 298) C. F. D. Moule, in his 1965 commentary: “It is very odd that Jesus should condemn a fig-tree for having no fruit when it was not even the season for fruit.” (p. 89)

Apologist Kyle Butt offers a plausible explanation:

One prominent question naturally arises from a straightforward reading of the text. Why would Jesus curse a fig tree that did not have figs on it, especially since the text says that “it was not the season for figs”? In response to this puzzling question, skeptical minds have let themselves run wild with accusations regarding the passage. . . .

When Jesus approached the fig tree, the text indicates that the tree had plenty of leaves. R.K. Harrison, writing in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, explains that various kinds of figs grew in Palestine during the first century. One very important aspect of fig growth has to do with the relationship between the leaf and the fruit. Harrison notes that the tiny figs, known to the Arabs as taksh, “appear simultaneously in the leaf axils” (1982, 2:302) This taksh is edible and “is often gathered for sale in the markets” (2:302). Furthermore, the text notes: “When the young leaves are appearing in spring, every fertile fig will have some taksh on it…. But if a tree with leaves has no fruit, it will be barren for the entire season” (2:301-302).

Thus, when Jesus approached the leafy fig tree, He had every reason to suspect that something edible would be on it. However, after inspecting the tree, Mark records that “He found nothing but leaves.” No taksh were budding as they should have been if the tree was going to produce edible figs that year. The tree appeared to be fruitful, but it only had outward signs of bearing fruit (leaves) and in truth offered nothing of value to weary travelers. . . .

[I]n a general sense, Jesus often insisted that trees which do not bear good fruit will be cut down (Matthew 7:19; Luke 13:6-9). The fig tree did not bear fruit, was useless, and deserved to be destroyed: the spiritual application being that any human who does not bear fruit for God will also be destroyed for his or her failure to produce.

Jesus did not throw a temper tantrum and curse the fig tree even though it was incapable of producing fruit. He cursed the tree because it should have been growing fruit since it had the outward signs of productivity. Jesus’ calculated timing underscored the spiritual truth that barren spiritual trees eventually run out of time. As for personal application, we should all diligently strive to ensure that we are not the barren fig tree.

Upon arriving at the Temple (v.15): “And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.”

What provoked Jesus to do this? Why was he upset about money-changers and dove-sellers? Jesus himself had once told a man he’d healed to “offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded,” meaning the sacrifice of a bird (according to Leviticus 14). The Temple existed for this form of devotion.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges provides an answer:

the tables of the moneychangers] The Greek word signifies those who took a small coin (Hebr. Kolbon, Grk. κόλλυβος, perhaps a Phœnician word) as a fee for exchanging the money of the worshippers, who were required to pay in Hebrew coin. This exaction of the fee was itself unlawful (Lightfoot). And probably other dishonest practices were rife.

Encyclopedia Judaica (“Money Changers”) confirms that this interest-taking was contrary to Jewish Law:

In the period of the Second Temple vast numbers of Jews streamed to Palestine and Jerusalem “out or every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5), taking with them considerable sums of money in foreign currencies. This is referred to in the famous instance of Jesus’ driving the money changers out of the Temple (Matt. 21:12). Not only did these foreign coins have to be changed but also ordinary deposits were often handed over to the Temple authorities for safe deposit in the Temple treasury (Jos., Wars 6:281–2). Thus Jerusalem became a sort of central bourse and exchange mart, and the Temple vaults served as “safe deposits” in which every type of coin was represented (TJ, Ma’as. Sh. 1:2, 52d, and parallels). The business of money exchange was carried out by the shulḥani (“exchange banker”), who would change foreign coins into local currency and vice versa (Tosef., Shek. 2:13; Matt. 21:12). People coming from distant countries would bring their money in large denominations rather than in cumbersome small coins. The provision of small change was a further function of the shulḥani (cf. Sif. Deut., 306; Ma’as Sh., 2:9). For both of these kinds of transactions the shulḥani charged a small fee (agio), called in rabbinic literature a kolbon (a word of doubtful etymology but perhaps from the Greek κόλλυβος “small coin”; TJ, Shek. 1:6, 46b). This premium seems to have varied from 4 percent to 8 percent (Shek. 1:6, et al.). The shulḥani served also as a banker, and would receive money on deposit for investment and pay out an interest at a fixed rate (Matt. 25:27), although this was contrary to Jewish law (see below; *Moneylending ). . . .

The activity of the Jewish banker, shulḥani, was of a closely defined nature, as his transactions had to be in accordance with the biblical prohibition against taking interest (ribit).

John Lightfoot’s commentary on Matthew 21:12 adds more relevant information:

[Overthrew the tables of the moneychangers.] Who those moneychangers were, may be learned very well from the Talmud, and Maimonides in the treatise Shekalim:– . . .

At that time when they paid pence for the half shekel, a kolbon [or the fee that was paid to the moneychanger] was half a mea, that is, the twelfth part of a penny, and never less. But the kolbons were not like the half shekel; but the exchangers laid them by themselves till the holy treasury were paid out of them.” You see what these moneychangers were, and whence they had their name. You see that Christ did not overturn the chests in which the holy money was laid up, but the tables on which they trafficked for this unholy gain.

Note that Jesus specifically concentrated on two groups: the moneychangers and those who sold doves. This was mentioned in the current account from Mark (above), and in the parallel stories (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16). His anger at the moneychangers has just been explained. They were unlawfully extracting interest, which would hurt the poor the most. Why did He go after the dove sellers? It’s a similar reason. The Experimental Theology blog explains:

As most know, the preferred sacrifice to be offered at the temple was a lamb. But a provision is made in the Levitical code for the poor:

Leviticus 5.7 Anyone who cannot afford a lamb is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the Lord as a penalty for their sin—one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.

By going after the dove sellers we see Jesus directly attacking the group who were having economic dealings with the poor. When the poor would go to the temple they would head for the dove sellers.

The point being, while we know that Jesus was upset about economic exploitation going on in the temple, his focus on the dove sellers sharpens the message and priorities. . . . Jesus’s anger is stirred at the way the poor are being treated and economically exploited.

Hence, He described this scenario with these people who exploited the poor, a “den of robbers” or “den of thieves.” Dr. Madison asked why Jesus was upset. I have provided an answer, through these excellent commentaries. Now Dr. Madison knows more than he did (so do I).

He blends wording from Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11, which have no relevance whatever to this incident—but Mark knew that he could get away with it.

• In Isaiah 56, the prophet looks forward to the day when all nations will bend the knee to his own god, Yahweh, and in that sense only will the temple be a house of prayer for all nations, i.e., when they have converted. Nor is this verse (7) a denunciation of the gory business of the temple; the text reads: “…their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.”

All Jesus cited was “My house shall be called a house of prayer” (Mk 11:17), which is from Isaiah 56:7. The point is that this is its central purpose: a place of worship and praise and prayer and ritual sacrifice: not of collection of unlawful interest and exploiting the poor, contrary to the Jewish Law. That’s all Jesus was saying.

It doesn’t follow (as with partial analogies) that every jot and tittle of a prophecy must be applicable to the situation about which it is cited. New Testament citation of the Old Testament is a long and complex subject in and of itself (see one article that gets into that). The same Isaiah 56:7 refers to “my house of prayer” (God speaking) before it says it will be called the same.

• In Jeremiah 7:11, the prophet blasts the wickedness of the people of Israel, and no amount of worship at the temple can cancel that reality. Thus the temple is a sham: “ Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight?” Den of robbers seems to have been an allusion to the sin that annulls the value of worship, not to the practice of selling animals and exchanging currency.

Here is the passage and some context as well:

Jeremiah 7:9-11 Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Ba’al, and go after other gods that you have not known, [10] and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, `We are delivered!’ — only to go on doing all these abominations? [11] Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, says the LORD.

The moneychangers and sellers of doves were stealing by extracting unlawful interest and excessive prices for items sold to the poor (the birds). 7:6 also states: “do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow”. So the passage is exactly applicable. The passage in its larger context lists a bunch of sins: two of which applied to the temple situation in Jesus’ time (stealing and exploitation of the less fortunate), and so He cited it accordingly. Yet Dr. Madison claimed that both passages “have no relevance whatever to this incident.” Poppycock!

***

Photo credit: Entry of the Christ in Jerusalem (1897), by Jean-Léon Gérôme (1824-1904) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #9: Chapter 10

Last updated on: August 26, 2019 at 2:13 pm By Dave Armstrong

Christian Biblical Ignorance / Jesus vs. Marriage & Family? / Divinity of Jesus

*****

Dr. Madison called this installment: “SO MUCH Bad Theology in ONE Bible Chapter: Who’s the culprit? His initials are J.C.” (12-7-18)

We can be sure that, most of the time, believers descend into a fog of piety when they pick up their Bibles to read the Jesus stories. It’s as if critical thinking is suspended or even cancelled as they reverently plod or skim through the gospels. That has allowed the church to get away with a lot.

Right. I guess that explains why I am happy to link to all of these hit-pieces on Jesus and the Bible on my site: quoting many of Dr. Madison’s words, and giving readers a critical take on them, while Dr. Madison has now ignored all twelve of my critiques of his podcasts against Jesus, and so far, five of these ongoing series of critiques: because he is rational and confident, and the irrational Christian (yours truly and apologists like me), has no answers to his gibberish.

If he claims to have the superior reasoning and logical capability and understanding of the biblical texts, let him come out from hiding (if he is still alive and kicking out there somewhere) and defend his ideas. He’s been informed of every single one of my counter-replies, underneath his own papers. But he doesn’t (zilch so far). Why is that (dear reader), do you think?

We read in Mark 10:1 that Jesus taught the crowds that followed him; in fact, here he departed from his main message about the coming Kingdom of God to respond to a question from the Pharisees. Thus in vv. 5-12 we find Jesus’ disastrous pronouncement about divorce. Of course, we can’t fault his belief that the Creator set things up for humans to reproduce: “…from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh.” (vv. 6-8)

But then we come to verse 9: “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Yes, God meant for men and women to get together. But it does not follow at all that God himself has been the matchmaker for every couple ‘since the beginning of creation.’ This idea would undermine the precious concept of free will that theists rely upon so heavily; but even if we allow that couples have been free to marry whom they chose, Jesus seems to be saying here that God then makes that choice irrevocable; it is binding—forever. There is a heavenly tyrant who can’t admit that a mistake has been made.

Indeed, when we consider how many bad marriages have been made for so many bad reasons for so many centuries, then God would have to be at fault for bungling things endlessly: “…what God has joined together.” Followed by the tyranny: “Let no one separate.” How can this not be bad theology? This is one of the consequences of intensely personal theism: God is spying, meddling, controlling. Jesus only made matters worse when he explained privately to his disciples, vv. 11-12: “He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’” This severe unbending legalism falls far short of being great moral teaching.

I already dealt with this line of reasoning in my paper, Madison vs. Jesus #4: Jesus Causes a Bad Marriage?

We descend into cult goofiness, and Jesus leads the way.

Far from having to worry about being rich, Peter responds (v. 28), “Look, we have left everything and followed you.” Which prompts one of the most bizarre statements attributed to Jesus (vv.29-30):

“Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.”

How can this not be the ultimate phony promise? If you give up your house, all your family and your fields for the sake of the cult leader, you’ll get back all of it—ALL of it—a hundred times over, both in this life and the life to come. It’s as if Jesus endorses the grotesque plot of the Book of Job.

Why don’t Christians snap out of it when they read this text? This is Jesus—or Mark who wrote the script—being weird, and it is not great moral teaching. Is it any wonder that (v. 32), “…they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid.” Yes, anyone who raves nonsense can have that impact.

I dealt with a recycled version of this argument here: Madison vs. Jesus #5: Cultlike Forsaking of Family?

It would appear that two of the disciples spotted an opportunity in Jesus’ promise that there would be great abundance in the life to come. James and John, the sons of Zebedee, decided to put in a request (v. 37): “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” Mark has given Jesus a script heavy with cult-code (vv.38-40):

“’You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?’ They replied, ‘We are able.’ Then Jesus said to them, ‘The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized. But to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.’”

Is it case that the Galilean peasant preacher had succumbed to this delusion, i.e., that God had already worked out the seating arrangements in the new Kingdom of God—and his central place in the scheme? Or is all this the product of Mark’s imagination? Keep in mind the fresh perspective that I recommended at the outset, i.e., looking at the gospels in their context.

See: Jesus Said He Was God: Reply to Ex-Christian Atheist

***

Photo credit: The Miraculous Draught of Fishes, 1515, by Raphael (1483-1520) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #8: Ch. 9 (“Mean” Jesus)

Last updated on: August 19, 2019 at 11:39 am By Dave Armstrong

*****

[Dr. Madison’s critique of chapter 8 was so silly, repetitive, insubstantial, and non-exegetical that it deserved no reply, so I passed over it]

Dr. Madison called this installment: “Jesus the Cult Fanatic, At It Again: Christians pretend not to notice…” (11-16-18)

Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, suddenly disappears, verse 42: “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea.” Wow. Anyone who obstructs belief in the cult leader deserves a grim fate. This is script for the fanatic who was Mark’s hero.

Huh? All He’s saying is that if one messes with the innocent, trusting faith of little children, they are in a very bad spiritual place. My RSV reads: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin . . .” It’s protecting children: hardly a “controversial” notion or example of Dr. Madison’s so-called “bad Jesus.” This would arguably cover pedophilia and other forms of child abuse, too. This kind of polemics is over-the-top ridiculous. Dr. Madison seems to make ever-more lousy arguments as he goes along.

But it gets worse. Priests and preachers wave off the next few grim verses (43-48) as metaphor or hyperbole, but couldn’t a compassionate Jesus have chosen his words more carefully? Unless you chop sin out of your life—literally—you aren’t a good bet for making it into the Kingdom.

“If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go to hell to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than to have two feet and to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into hell, where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched.”

It’s my guess that if many Christians ran into a street preacher shouting these words, they would cross the street to get away. But why is it okay when Jesus says these things, solemnly recited as part of the white noise on Sunday mornings?

The self-mutilation metaphor cannot be considered appropriate for sane religion; moreover, Jesus declines to specify exactly what he has in mind, i.e., the sins that hands, feet, and eyes can commit to deserve severe punishment. This has given license for preachers for centuries to fill in the details, according to their own personal biases about sin.

This is, of course, non-literal hyperbole, or extreme exaggeration to make a point. I dealt with it as a common phenomenon in Scripture in my paper, Dr. David Madison vs. Jesus #1: Hating One’s Family?

Please don’t tout Jesus as greatest ethicist who ever lived if he taught that, for their mistakes, fallible human beings could end up in a place where the punishing fire never ceases. Our role models for morality cannot be mean and vindictive.

An eternal hell can easily be defended as a just notion, and I have done so many times:

Replies to Some Skeptical Objections to the Christian Doctrine of Hell (“Religion Is Lies” website) [5-24-06]

Biblical Annihilationism or Universalism? (w Atheist Ted Drange) [9-30-06]

Dialogue w Atheists on Hell & Whether God is Just [12-5-06]

Hell: Dialogue with a Philosophy Graduate Student [12-26-08]

Dialogue: Hell & God’s Justice, Part II [1-2-09]

Can Hell Actually be Defended? My Shot … [10-7-15]

Atheism & Atheology (Copious Resources, including on hell) [11-5-15]

A Defense of Hell: Philosophical Explanations of its Plausibility, Necessity, and Factuality [12-10-15]

Exchanges with an Atheist on Hell & Skepticism [12-17-15]

How to Annihilate Three Skeptical Fallacies Regarding Hell [National Catholic Register, 6-10-17]

Hell as a Deterrent: Analogy to Our Legal Systems [10-3-18]

As I mentioned earlier, Jesus had given his disciples the ‘authority’ to cast out demons (one aspect of magical thinking found in the gospel). But it turns out that they weren’t always up to the task. In the heart of chapter 9 we learn about a demon that resisted their magic. A father had brought his mute, deaf son to be healed; Jesus was furious that they had failed. Instead of calming asking what might have gone wrong, he lashed out: “You faithless generation, how much longer must I be among you? How much longer must I put up with you? Bring him to me.” (v. 19)

We can see that the text never says that Jesus was “furious.” That’s simply wishful thinking on Dr. Madison’s part: always desperately and vainly looking for “bad Jesus.”

The father reported that his son had been like this since childhood: “It has often cast him into the fire and into the water, to destroy him…”

Now comes one of the most poignant texts in the gospel. The desperate father pleads, “…but if you are able to do anything, have pity on us and help us.” Jesus had snarled at the disciples,

He merely rebuked them for lack of belief (and He later explains why: “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer”: 9:29). And so Dr. Madison calls this reply of Jesus, “a smug, smart-ass answer.” Really? There are times when Jesus gets truly angry (righteously indignant), such as his encounter with the moneychangers at the temple and with the Pharisees (Matthew 24). This is not one of them; nor is it “proof” that Jesus was sinfully angry at all. It’s just one of the innumerable “Madison myths.” Dr. Madison adds:

Gee, the disciples hadn’t tried that [prayer, to remove the demon]?

Probably, but just not enough: is also a reasonable interpretation. To offer an analogy, it would be like saying that “getting over the death of a loved one comes through crying.” There is momentary crying and there is extended, anguished soul-level weeping and wailing. All of us who have experienced great tragedy, including loss and grieving know the difference well. That’s how prayer is, too. It’s a matter of degree. And this seems to be a plausible take on this incident. The disciples needed to pray more, and with more faith. But they lacked it; hence Jesus’ chastising rebuke (just as all good parents do with children, where necessary for their own good).

now he belittled the father. Jesus said to him, “‘If you are able!—All things can be done for the one who believes.’ Immediately the father of the child cried out, ‘I believe; help my unbelief!’” The poor guy might have wondered if his own lack to belief could have been a factor in his son’s disability. He wants to make amends, “Help my unbelief!”

Again, how is this belittling the father? Dr. Madison is apparently quite the mind-reader: and most of what he seems to observe are alleged “negative” thoughts. The man asked Jesus, “if you can do anything, have pity on us and help us” and Jesus replied, “If you can! All things are possible to him who believes” (9:22-23). I have noted repeatedly in these replies how faith is tied in with healing in Scripture: not always, but probably the great majority of times. So Jesus was saying that it was not merely a matter of His own divine power, but also of the faith of the man (and with use of more hyperbole).

There are two pieces of bad advice—actually bad theology—in this story which have no doubt caused much Christian anguish for centuries.

• Belief is a key to overcoming illness—it just has to be strong enough: “All things can be done for the one who believes.” Jesus condemned “this faithless generation.”

• Add some prayer to that, and the magic will work: the demon could be vanquished “only through prayer.”

The devout who actually do read the gospels for guidance on how to live and survive, and assume that Jesus is telling the honest truth, sense that these are unreasonable expectations. They know that, far too often, belief and prayer don’t work in the face of chronic suffering, and they beat themselves up for failing. This is not healthy religion. Shame on Jesus for this bad advice.

I have dealt with the repetitive, droning theme in Dr. Madison’s overall polemic (which doesn’t become any more true merely by repeating the same tired lies): Madison vs. Jesus #10: Universal Answered Prayer & Healing?

Mark’s gospel is saturated with miracle, magic, superstition, and fantasy: Jesus glowed on a mountaintop while having a chat with long-dead heroes. Such stories emerge from imaginations fired by religious zeal. If only Christians could read the gospels carefully, meticulously, critically—and wise up that they’ve been conned.

[I pass over further slanders and blasphemies against Jesus and the Holy Bible, such as these. One has only so much patience — even by God’s supernatural enabling grace — with this sort of bilge. I ain’t Job]

***

Photo credit: Christ driving the money-changers from the Temple (1610), by Cecco del Caravaggio (1588-1620) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #7: Ch. 7 (Gentiles)

Last updated on: August 19, 2019 at 11:36 am By Dave Armstrong

*****

Dr. Madison called this installment: “Made-to-Order Stories for the Jesus Cult: But consistency was not a virtue” (9-28-18)

Every missionary who has ever lived has been inspired by the famous ‘Great Commission,’ spoken by the resurrected Jesus in Matthew 28:19-20: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.” Of course, we have a right to be skeptical that a dead man came back to life to give orders, but there are other reasons as well for suspecting that Jesus—even while he was alive—didn’t say this.

Since this gospel was probably written a good fifty years after the death of Jesus, Matthew probably wrote to motivate his readers at the time—and we know that he was an expert at making things up. . . . Moreover his portrayal of Jesus doesn’t hang together very well. In chapter 10:5-6, Jesus sends the disciples out on a preaching mission, with this caveat: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” In 15:24, when Jesus declines to help a Syrophoenician woman, he repeats this claim: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

He did not “decline” help to this woman’s daughter, who was healed of demon possession (as even Dr. Madison notes in his critique, three paragraphs later):

Matthew 15:28 (RSV) Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

So it’s absurd to claim that Jesus somehow didn’t want to heal her daughter. He did, and that shows His will. He was simply making a rhetorical point to draw her out. If He truly didn’t want to heal her, then obviously He wouldn’t have, no matter what she said. Or if this is what the — for Dr. Madison, deceitful, propagandistic — Gospel writer wished to convey, he wouldn’t have reported that Jesus did this (It wouldn’t have fit into the agenda, etc.).

Besides, being “sent” to the Israelites is a different proposition from “who Jesus decided to heal.” So this is a ridiculous and self-contradictory argument from Dr. Madison: surprisingly lousy even by his low “exegetical” [choke / cough] pseudo-standards. Truly this is an example of what Paul noted: “they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened” (Rom 1:21).

Did he change his mind after the resurrection? Or had the compulsion to ‘make disciples of all nations’ come along by Matthew’s time, certainly under the impact of Paul’s zeal as well. This is a measure of the new cult’s hubris and delusions of grandeur. This never seems to dissipate; it is displayed by today’s fanatical sects, e.g. the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses—“we gotta convert the world”…or at least rescue the remnant. . . .

In fact, the text in Matthew 15 is the author’s reworking of a story found in Mark 7, which is the focus of this article, . . .

This dumbfounded insinuation that Jesus somehow didn’t want to help or heal anyone but his own Hebrews / Jews, doesn’t hold water, either. As usual, Dr. Madison misses the forest for the trees, because he can’t trouble himself to see what Jesus actually said and did in this regard, elsewhere. There are many counter-examples that refute his silly theory:

1) Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4:5-29) illustrates His view. Here He not only ministered to her with great compassion, but noted at the end that salvation was to extend to the non-Jewish Gentiles as well: “salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him” (4:22b-23).

2) Matthew seems to not be aware of his own supposed “Jews only Jesus” since he applies an Old Testament passage about outreach to Gentiles directly to Jesus as the Servant and Messiah:

Matthew 12:15-21 Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. And many followed him, and he healed them all, [16] and ordered them not to make him known. [17] This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: [18] “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles. [19] He will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will any one hear his voice in the streets; [20] he will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick, till he brings justice to victory; [21] and in his name will the Gentiles hope.”

3) Likewise, Luke records Simeon saying about Jesus:

Luke 2:30-32 for mine eyes have seen thy salvation [31] which thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples, [32] a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to thy people Israel.”

4) Jesus told the Jewish “chief priests and scribes” (Mt 21:15) and “Pharisees” (21:45) that righteous Gentiles will enter the kingdom before self-righteous Jews (like them):

Matthew 21:31b-32 “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. [32] For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the harlots believed him; and even when you saw it, you did not afterward repent and believe him.

Matthew 21:42-43, 45 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the scriptures: `The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? [43] Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it.” [45] When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them.

5) Jesus healed the pagan Roman centurion’s servant, commended his faith, and noted that many Gentiles would be saved, and many Jews lost:

Matthew 8:5-13 As he entered Caper’na-um, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him [6] and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress.” [7] And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” [8] But the centurion answered him, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. [9] For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, `Go,’ and he goes, and to another, `Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, `Do this,’ and he does it.” [10] When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. [11] I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, [12] while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” [13] And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; be it done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

6) Jesus’ famous parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:29-37) had as its central message the notion that a non-Jew who helped someone is more of a “neighbor” than a fellow Jew who did nothing.

7) Here is Jesus healing another foreigner: a Samaritan man and commending his faith:

Luke 17:12-19 And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers, who stood at a distance [13] and lifted up their voices and said, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.” [14] When he saw them he said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went they were cleansed. [15] Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice; [16] and he fell on his face at Jesus’ feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan. [17] Then said Jesus, “Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? [18] Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” [19] And he said to him, “Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well.”

8) Jesus specifically went to the land of the Gadarenes or Gerasenes, east of the Sea of Galilee, to minister to them (very odd behavior if Dr. Madison’s contentions are correct). This was where Jesus sent the demons into the pigs (one of Dr. Madison’s favorite Bible stories): Mk 5:1-20; Lk 8:26-39; Mt 8:28-34. Wikipedia, in its article on the region, states:

The name is derived from either a lakeside village, Gergesa, the next larger city, Gadara, or the best-known city in the region, Gerasa. . . . They were both Gentile cities filled with citizens who were culturally more Greek than Semitic; this would account for the pigs in the biblical account.

9) Jesus earlier echoed His message of the Great Commission (Mt 28:19-20):

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come. (cf. Mk 13:10; Lk 24:47)

Thus, Dr. Madison’s “argument” that Jesus wanted nothing to do with the Gentiles falls flat; it is the opposite of the truth. I’ve just proven that with nine biblical examples. And a tenth example that he gave to supposedly bolster his argument, didn’t even do so, when examined closely.

***

Photo credit: Jesus and the Centurion (c. 1571), by Paolo Veronese (1528-1588) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #6: Chapters 5-6

Last updated on: August 26, 2019 at 2:38 pm By Dave Armstrong

Supernatural & Miracles / Biblical Literary Genres & Figures / Perpetual Virginity / Healing & Belief / Persecution of Jesus in Nazareth

*****

Dr. Madison called this installment: “Christianity’s Guilty Pleasure: Magical Thinking: Where’s the Delete Key?” (8-10-18) [Mark chapter 5]

It’s too bad J. K. Rowling didn’t write the gospels. Jesus could have used the Invisibility Cloak on the night he was betrayed; Judas wouldn’t have been able to find him to give him that famous kiss. But the four guys who penned the most famous Jesus stories—whom later tradition named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were no slouches in the magical thinking department.

One of the mysteries of the Christian faith is that devout folks don’t notice this, or don’t grasp it; or, inexplicably, they’re just not too concerned about it. Some evangelicals are tuned in enough to be alarmed by the Harry Potter stories—it’s sorcery, after all—without noticing the irony: Harry is competition; they trade in the same genre. . . .

I suppose Christians are willing to give a pass to magical thinking when it is embedded in charming, touching stories—or one with ominous qualities, which is what we find in Mark 5. Still, this is no excuse to abandon critical thinking. Just what kind of literature is this?

In Dr. Madison’s critique of chapter 6 (see my replies below) he writes similarly:

So, let’s add to the challenge to Christians that I mentioned at the beginning. Not only how many chapters can they get through without having to make up excuses; but how many gospel verses—be honest now—should be filed under The Messiah’s Magic Tricks? If a ‘miracle’ verse could just as easily fit into a fairy tale, a Disney animated fantasy, or even a Marvel Comics adventure (are there other superheroes who walk on water?), then, fess up, the gospel writers have indulged their weakness for magical thinking.

What I stated in installment #2 of this series, I’ll repeat again here:

I pass over Dr. Madison’s stock atheist objections to Satan, demons (getting also a bit into the problem of evil), and supernatural healing. These are discussions that are very involved, entailing in-depth philosophy and theology, and go far beyond the “textual” arguments that I am concentrating on in my critiques.

Dr. Madison rarely seems to ever make — if ever – an actual argument against the existence of angels, demons, and Satan, and the supernatural and miracles. He simply assumes from the outset that such things are ridiculous and the equivalent of the Easter Bunny and fairies and leprechauns, Harry Potter sorcery, etc. And that’s another distinct reason I refuse to engage him on this particular issue: because there is no rational argument to engage in the first place, since he provides none.

All he gives us is the usual empty-headed, closed-minded mockery (“Jesus chatted with demons. What kind of compromises with reality are Christians willing to make?” etc.): so beloved of so many atheists (especially apostate Christian ones). Yes! The Bible contains miracles and supernatural elements! Like, this is supposed to come as some sort of surprise? My purpose in this series is to do biblical exegesis and commentary, and to refute Dr. Madison’s hostile, fallacious, non-factual claims for the biblical text that can’t withstand scrutiny.

For those who still possess an open mind and are willing to examine scientifically documented instances of healing, I wrote about this in May 2018 in dialogue with an atheist. He chose not to grapple with the evidence presented, and no other atheist has seen fit to do so since, either (what a surprise):

Does God Still Perform Miracles? (Some Evidence)

I’ve written about the philosophical question of miracles many times and have also collected scholarly articles on the topic, but this is beyond my present purview. Whoever wants to read any of my articles on the topic or those of others, is free to do so.

But back to Dr. Madison: literally all he does in this paper is rant and rave, sans rational argument against that which he detests and disbelieves. So there is nothing here to contend with, in terms of exegesis and textual arguments. Thus, I move on to the next attack-piece in the series:

“Jesus and his Team of Traveling Exorcists: Reading the gospels can be a bumpy ride” (8-31-18) [Mark chapter 6]

It would be cool to throw down this challenge to the folks who are sure the Bible is God’s Wonderful Word: See how many chapters you can get through without having to make excuses for what seems to be the plain meaning of the text. We commonly hear, “Well, you can’t take that literally,” or “It’s not as strange/bad/silly as it sounds…” There are plenty of on-line apologist commentaries to help knock off the rough edges and ‘make straight the way of the lord,’ so to speak. Of course, one can breeze through the gospels on the hunt for the familiar, comforting texts, but a careful, thoughtful reading sometimes can put strains on faith.

For discerning readers who are under no obligation to make the story ‘come out right’—with Jesus sane and intact—Mark, Chapter 6 has too many rough edges.

Imagine that! The Bible actually contains lots of non-literal passages, utilizing many many forms and varieties of literary figures, genres, etc. (!!!): all tied into and presupposing a very different ancient near eastern Semitic / Hebrew / Israelite culture: which we also have to learn a bit about (to put it mildly) in order to fully understand the Bible and what it is trying to convey in any given passage or book. These things are not fodder for juvenile jokes and mocking.

They may — who knows why? — come as extraordinarily shocking news to Dr. Madison (a man with a doctorate degree in biblical studies), but it is common knowledge that all languages in every culture and at all times, include these aspects. Ancient Hebrew and Greek as used in Holy Scripture are no different.

In my previous antidote, Dr. David Madison vs. Jesus #1: Hating One’s Family?, I mentioned Bible scholar E. W. Bullinger, who described and explained “over 200 distinct figures [in the Bible], several of them with from 30 to 40 varieties.” His 1104-page tome is called, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London: 1898). It’s available for free, online. I have a hardcover copy in my own personal library. It’s endlessly educational and fascinating. That particular reply of mine delved into just one such figure in considerable depth.

Very few people could master all that information and have it in their head. But Dr. Madison is different, you see. He inhabits an entirely different thought-world than us lowly and ignorant, gullible and infantile Christian peasants. He has the brain power and wisdom to immediately know and grasp and comprehend “the plain meaning of” any biblical text, without having to be burdened by such trifles as what Dr. Bullinger writes about, over 1104 pages. Dr. Madison needs none of it. He knows all things biblical instantly, with no further need of study.

Moreover, the skeptical locals put Jesus in his place: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” Catholic theologians, committed to protecting Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, try to nullify the clear meaning of the text: these were actually cousins of Jesus, they claim, or children from Joseph’s first marriage! Theologians assume they can get away with pulling the wool.

First of all, perpetual virginity is not simply Catholic teaching, but also Orthodox and historic Protestant teaching. All of the major “reformers” of early Protestantism held to it: including Martin Luther and John Calvin. And all of these Christians traditions do so for a reason: it was what was passed down in apostolic tradition from the beginning, and it has many biblical and apostolic and patristic arguments in its favor. I have elaborated upon these many times, and this is not “pulling the wool” but rather, seriously engaging all of the relevant biblical texts:

Bible on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary [1996]

Why Believe in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity? [2-28-04]

James the Lord’s “Brother” (i.e., Cousin) + Who Wrote the Book of James? [11-6-08]

Jesus’ “Brothers” Always “Hangin’ Around” Mary … (Doesn’t This Prove That They Are Actually His Siblings?) [8-31-09]

Biblical Arguments for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity [2015]

“Holy Ground” & Mary’s Perpetual Virginity [5-24-16]

Biblical Evidence for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary [National Catholic Register, 4-13-18]
*

More Biblical Evidence for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity [National Catholic Register, 4-25-18]
*

The “clear meaning” of the text Dr. Madison cites (Mk 6:3) is not at all in line with what he casually thinks and assumes, and this is fairly easy to demonstrate, as I have done.

In verse 5 we find an admission that Jesus was powerless, or nearly so. “And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them.” Can we infer that Jesus’ “deeds of power” depended on people believing he could do them? This raises questions about his skills as a showman, and the gullibility of those who were eager to see “deeds of power.”

Mark 6:5-6 (RSV) And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them. [6] And he marveled because of their unbelief. . . .

Yes, there is a strong overlap of people having faith and their being healed, but not always (or it’s not always stated: which is a different thing) See my long paper on the biblical view of healing. Three of the Gospels record Jesus saying, “your faith has made you well” six times. Jesus’ power in and of itself doesn’t depend on people’s faith, or else it is absent. He simply wants them to have faith. But I think this particular text isn’t even talking about what Dr. Madison thinks. Jesus couldn’t do a “mighty work” in Nazareth, because He was hounded out of town as soon as He spoke in the synagogue, citing Isaiah and claiming to be the Messiah. That’s made clear in Luke:

Luke 4:28-31 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. [Mk 6:3: “they took offense at him”] [29] And they rose up and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong. [30] But passing through the midst of them he went away. [31] And he went down to Caper’na-um, a city of Galilee. . . .

That’s why He couldn’t do many healings there: which of course has nothing to do with supposedly being “powerless, or nearly so.” See how silly and shallow this typical specimen of atheist “exegesis” is? It’s because anti-theist atheists of Dr. Madison’s type approach the Bible like a butcher approaches a hog. Jesus didn’t have time to do many healings in Nazareth because the townspeople attempted to stone Him as soon as He read in the synagogue. The first part of stoning was to throw a person off of a big cliff, if available. And such a cliff was available in Nazareth. I’ve been there and have seen it. Here is a description from the Jewish Talmud:

One account is given to us in the Jewish Mishnah (multiple oral Jewish traditions combined into a single work). In (Sanhedrin, ch. 6, Mishnah 4) it says this on how a person was to be stoned:

#1. The place of stoning was twice a man’s height (with rocks below).

#2. One of the witnesses pushed him by the hips, [so that] he was overturned on his heart (fell face first on the rocks).

#3. He was then turned on his back.

#4. If that caused his death, he had fulfilled [his duty]; but if not, the second witness took a (large) stone and threw it on his chest.

#5. If he died thereby, he had done [his duty]; but if not, he [the criminal] was stoned by all Israel.

But by far the most embarrassing item in this text is Jesus’ hard-heartedness. Like other cult leaders, he had no patience for those who balked at his message (v.11): “If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.” When Matthew copied Mark’s text, he made Jesus even meaner (10:15): “Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” The apostles, so says verse 12, “…went out and proclaimed that all should repent.” Presumably some of the folks they accosted, being devout Jews, felt no need to ‘repent.’ But if they turned away these itinerate preachers they deserved destruction. How does Jesus come off as the good guy? I don’t know how Christians can overlook this arrogance; their hero is seriously flawed. If you meet Christians who are okay with this kind of vengeance…well, those are the kinds of Christians to stay away from.

I dealt with the supposedly “meaner” Matthew account and Dr. Madison’s identical argument in my paper, Madison vs. Jesus #9: Clueless Re Rebellion & Judgment. And I took on the general non-“issue” almost five years ago: “Shake the Dust Off of Your Feet”: Mean?

***

Photo credit: Jesus Unrolls the Book in the Synagogue, by James Tissot (1836-1902) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #5: Chapter 4 (Parables)

Last updated on: August 17, 2019 at 9:04 pm By Dave Armstrong

*****

Dr. Madison called this installment: “Please Tell Me Jesus Didn’t Say That: The gospel writer pushed history off the page” (7-27-18)

The Purpose of the Parables

At the opening of Mark 4 we read that Jesus, sitting in a boat, was preaching to a large crowd on the land. In fact, this is the first time that Jesus is depicted telling a parable. It is commonly known as the Parable of the Sower. Jesus points out that some of the seed lands on the path, some in rocky soil, some among thorns—and finally some in good soil, which yields abundant produce. Jesus concludes, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

That’s it?

The folks in the big crowd probably knew what sowers did, and they might have thought, “Gee, what a sloppy guy. Be more careful where you throw the seed! So, what’s your point Jesus?” We’re told in earlier chapters that many people flocked to see Jesus because he healed a lot of people—they wanted to just touch his garments—and he cast out demons. We hear in Mark 1:27 that they raved about his new teaching.

But this parable of the sower could not have failed to disappoint. Why would his listeners not have said, “So what?”

Church folks, who have probably heard dozens of sermons based on this parable—and its explanation a few verses later—nod knowingly. But the crowd that supposedly heard Jesus wasn’t told the explanation. Bizarrely enough, that’s part of Mark’s plot. In vv. 10-12, we read that, when Jesus was alone with the disciplines and other followers, he told them:

“To you has been given the secret [or mystery] of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that ‘they may indeed look, but not perceive,
and may indeed listen, but not understand;
so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.’”

Did I read that right? This is even a quote from Isaiah 6:9-10, presumably to give it more clout. Jesus confides to his inside circle that he doesn’t want outsiders to perceive, understand his message and repent. He seems to be referring to the common rabble, those great throngs of people who came out to hear him preach.

But this doesn’t make sense. Jesus doesn’t want them to repent?

This is such a contrast to what we read elsewhere. In Mark 1:38, Jesus says, “Let us go on to the neighboring towns, so that I may proclaim the message there also; for that is what I came out to do.” And in 2:17 Jesus declares, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.” Why would he then tell those closest to him that he uses parables to keep people in the dark?

Yes, of course, Mark got it wrong, and seems to have overlooked his blunder. Or maybe not. He might have known exactly what he was doing, and didn’t care all that much about consistency. . . .

In verses 33-34 he returns to the promise that knowledge of God’s Kingdom is for the few:

“With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples.” . . .

Let’s just hope that no one succeeds in proving that Jesus didn’t want sinners to repent and be forgiven. That would be a setback for the What-Would-Jesus-Do crowd.

I have already thoroughly disposed of this groundless and clueless objection in my paper, Madison vs. Jesus #7: God Prohibits Some Folks’ Repentance?

Apologists can also deal with the challenge of squaring “he did not speak to them except in parables” with John’s gospel, in which Jesus doesn’t tell any parables at all.

Yeah, I did that in installment #1 of this series, but for convenience’ sake, I’ll paste it here again:

That’s correct. But Jesus does talk (as recorded in the Gospel of John) in many metaphorical or proverbial (non-literal) ways that bear resemblance to the synoptic parables. For example:

John 2:19-21 (RSV) Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” [20] The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” [21] But he spoke of the temple of his body.

John 3:8 The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit.

John 4:13-14 Jesus said to her, “Every one who drinks of this water will thirst again, [14] but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.

John 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. (see also 10:1-10, 12-18, including Jesus calling Himself “the door” three times)

John 11:12-14 But if any one walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him.” [11] Thus he spoke, and then he said to them, “Our friend Laz’arus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep.” [12] The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” [13] Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. [14] Then Jesus told them plainly, “Laz’arus is dead;”

Then follows this warning, vv. 24-25:

[Jesus] said to them, “Pay attention to what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given you. For to those who have, more will be given; and from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.”

I’ll leave it to the zealous apologists to make Jesus look good on this one. Mark’s script, trying to keep the Jesus cult intact, sets the tone for countless cult leaders to come: folks were expected to give full commitment to the cult, and they will lose everything if they didn’t.

Dr. Madison employs his usual tarnishing of Christianity as a bizarre, mind-controlling “cult.” “Cult” might even very well be his favorite word in the English language. I’m afraid it’s much simpler than that (no one need resort to arbitrary conspiracy theories and poisoning the well). Jesus is merely saying that if we don’t act upon the grace that God gives us, then we are in danger of losing everything: meaning that we will lose salvation and be damned.

This is the whole point of Christianity: ultimate salvation and going to heaven to be in union with God forever: just as God always intended for His children that He created (because this will give us unimaginable — the highest possible — joy and happiness for all eternity, since we were made for it). But He also didn’t want to create robots with no free will; so that free will is what opens up the possibility of rejection of God, and thus (failing repentance) winding up in hell, separate from Him, by deliberate choice, for all eternity.

Mark continues his theme of the seed being the Kingdom of God. In vv. 26-29 he uses the imagery of seed sprouting and growing, resulting in a good harvest, and in vv. 30-32 the Kingdom of God is compared to a mustard seed that will grow into an enormous bush. He seems to want to assure his followers that their hope for the Kingdom would have a big payoff.

Nonsense. All Jesus is saying here is that evangelism — spreading the Gospel — will bear great fruit. He’s not talking about personal gain (economic or otherwise). What started as a small band of twelve disciples (eventually minus the one betrayer) would grow and grow to the size it is today:

With around 2.3 billion adherents, split into three main branches of Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox, Christianity is the world’s largest religion. The Christian share of the world’s population has stood at around 33% for the last hundred years, which means that one in three persons on Earth are Christians. . . . According to a 2015 Pew Research Center study, within the next four decades, Christians will remain the world’s largest religion; and by 2050, the Christian population is expected to exceed 3 billion. (Wikipedia, “Christianity: Demographics”)

How’s that for a true prediction?

***

Photo credit: Jesus Teaches the People by the Sea, by James Tisot (1836-1902) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***