Unforgivable Sin (Blaspheming the Holy Spirit) / Plots to Kill Jesus / Rude Jesus? (“Who is My Mother?”)

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: “How Come Jesus Didn’t Know Better?: Jesus and the demons” (4-20-18).

[I pass over Dr. Madison’s rant against angels, demons, Satan, and benevolent dead saints. He gives no arguments and merely assumes that such beings are self-evidently false and superstitious (“Mark chapter 3 is a major embarrassment to devout Christians who have learned to think like citizens of the 21st Century,” etc. ad nauseam); hence, nothing in this section to refute or interact with. I deal with arguments, not bald self-assumed infallible and invulnerable ravings]

Perhaps the most regrettable part of this pronouncement comes at the end: You’re not allowed to insult one of the big shots in the spirit world:

• “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—for they had said, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’” (vv. 28-30)

We have to assume that the Christians who ‘love their Jesus’ don’t pay much attention to this text—or are as heavily into magical thinking as the guy who wrote it. Everything else can be forgiven, but not blaspheming the holy spirit? Of course this makes no sense whatever from the standpoint of rational ethics.

It’s because this blasphemy is rejection of God Himself (Whom the Holy Spirit and Jesus are). It’s calling evil good. Hence, it can’t and won’t be forgiven in the sense that there is no repentance and the person has completely and utterly rejected God (completely hardened their hearts, as the Bible often expresses it). Jesus said this after the hostile “scribes” charged that He was “possessed by Be-el’zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons” (3:22, RSV; cf. Jn 10:20). They were saying He was either a demoniac or an idol- or devil-worshiper. And so Jesus replied (quite sensibly and logically):

Mark 3:23-26 . . . “How can Satan cast out Satan? [24] If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. [25] And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. [26] And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end.”

He completely nailed them for something that made no sense whatsoever: the devil literally fighting against himself by allowing one of his supposed agents / demons to cast out other of his demons. Huh? Then He made the point that lying about God in this way was so evil that it would lead to damnation (the absence of any more forgiveness and the presence of “eternal sin” in hell). Jesus adds in the parallel account in Matthew:

Matthew 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. (cf. Lk 11:20: “. . . by the finger of God . . .”)

How in the world this is “regrettable” and how it supposedly “makes no sense whatever from the standpoint of rational ethics” is, I’m afraid, beyond me. It would be like calling a doctor who just did a successful eight-hour heart surgery on a patient (saving her life) an “evil man who serves Satan”: as if what he did was a bad thing, only deserving of scorn and derision. That’s a very wicked lie; and it would richly deserve precisely the rebuke that Jesus gave an even more outrageous and vicious lie.

In effect, Jesus was expressing the thought that, “if you call even the benevolent God evil or in league with Satan and demons, then there is no hope for you, as you have rejected the sole source of your possible salvation.” And that is merciful and perfectly rational and ethical. He’s telling them that they are in extreme spiritual danger, just as any caring person would warn another about impending physical danger, if it is potentially present (say, for example, walking out into a powerful hurricane). They were playing with fire. If they didn’t know that, then they did after Jesus informed them.

Mark declared at the opening of his gospel that Jesus was the son of God, so the hushing of the demons helped explain why this status wasn’t as well known as it could have been. Furthermore, Mark needed to explain why Jesus came to a bad end; yes, it was necessary theologically (Mark 10:45: “For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many”), but how was the bad end plotted?

In chapter 3, Mark introduces this theme. After Jesus had once again (as at the end of chapter 2) challenged the religious bureaucrats on Sabbath rules, we read in v. 3:6: “The Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.”

This simple statement reflects the omniscient perspective that novelists enjoy; they can tell the reader what characters are thinking—or in this case, conspiring. Those who want to believe that Mark is history have the burden of explaining how the author could have known what he reports in verse 3:6. Of course, the novelist can write what he wants, but the historian has to gather the facts. If the gospel was composed 40 or 50 years after the death of the protagonist—and after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE—it’s hard to conceive how the author could have documented the plotting of the Pharisees and Herodians. Did they even keep written records of what they were up to? Did such records survive? How would he have had access to them?

It may have been speculative in some sense, I suppose, but if so, it was a quite plausible speculation, since Jesus’ enemies gave many hints that they hated and despised Him: up to and including violent threats and infiltration of Jesus’ own twelve disciples, to get someone willing to betray Him (and the incident I just dealt with, where they accused Him of being “possessed by Be-el’zebul.” After all, all the Gospels (as Dr. Madison never tires of pointing out) were written after the death of Jesus; so they also had the benefit of hindsight. The fact is that Jesus was tried by the Jewish Sanhedrin, in an illegal kangaroo court, complete with absurdly conflicting “witnesses”:

Mark 14:55-59 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none. [56] For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree. [57] And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, [58] “We heard him say, `I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'” [59] Yet not even so did their testimony agree.

We know at least part of these proceedings were public in nature (such as the incident with the crowd yelling for Jesus’ crucifixion), and so the hatred of Jesus could have been observed. Moreover, there were many other public and observable hints of same:

John 10:31-33 The Jews took up stones again to stone him. [32] Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?” [33] The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

That was a public incident, and that is how the Gospel writers could know — fairly certainly — that there was such a plot to kill Jesus. John himself could write what he did elsewhere precisely because of what happened in the incident above:

John 5:18 This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.

Jesus was threatened with stoning or other bodily harm by the scribes and Pharisees other times as well:

John 8:59 So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

John 11:8 The disciples said to him, “Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?”

Luke 4:28-30 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. [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.

If an historian (whether professional or “amateur”) made the statement, “John Wilkes Booth hated Abraham Lincoln and sought to destroy him” or “Lee Harvey Oswald hated John F. Kennedy and sought to destroy him” would they be justified, and accurate? I submit that most would think so, based on the documented facts of the two assassinations. Likewise, with Mark’s speculation.

Now, as for the particular assertion of a pharisaical plot with the Herodians (which is Dr. Madison’s main objection here), this is not implausible at all, to put it mildly. There were several outward indications. Herod the Great was determined to kill Jesus, and had all the male children of Bethlehem two years and under killed in the effort to do so (Mt 2:1-16). Would the mothers of those children forget about this? His son Herod Antipas also killed John the Baptist (Mt 14:3; Lk 9:9). Luke records “chief priests and the scribes” along with Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate all in league against Jesus:

Luke 23:10-12 The chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently accusing him. [11] And Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him; then, arraying him in gorgeous apparel, he sent him back to Pilate. [12] And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before this they had been at enmity with each other.

Some good Pharisees were aware of Herod’s plotting and warned Jesus:

Luke 13:31-33 At that very hour some Pharisees came, and said to him, “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.” [32] And he said to them, “Go and tell that fox, `Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course.  [33] Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.'”

This is more than enough external verification for Mark to surmise as he did (even considered separately from the question of biblical inspiration).

“Oh, this tidbit is based on eyewitness accounts and/or reliable oral tradition.” So say those who want Mark to be history. But that is conjecture, wishful thinking—actually it is a ‘faith’ statement—for which there is no evidence. We have no idea where such information could have come from; it is based on the omniscient perspective of the novelist. He is introducing another component of his plot.

I just showed how it is altogether plausible and hardly a stretch at all to so conclude. But (to play his game for a moment) Dr. Madison, in his manifest sagacity and wisdom, doesn’t want this to be true, and engages in mere conjecture and wishful thinking. As the old proverb goes, “a man convinced against his will retains his original belief still.”

Yet More Embarrassment

Mark 3 ends with another text that many Christians would like to wish away, and has generated apologetic rationalization. It makes it hard to ask What Would Jesus Do?

• “…they said to him, ‘Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you.’ And he replied, ‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’ And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.’” (vv. 32-35)

On the most generous interpretation, Jesus is here expanding his understanding of family—but it still sounds like a rebuff of this kin. We wonder how well Jesus and his family got along, based on these verses, also in chapter 3 (vv. 19-21):

• “Then he went home; and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat. And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself.’”

James Spencer Northcote provides a great answer to this line of reasoning:

We are quite at liberty to imagine, if we like, that Our Lord, after uttering the words which the Evangelists have recorded, rose up and proceeded to grant His Mother the interview she had asked for; there would be nothing at all strange in such a supposition; on the contrary, it is more possible than not; but it is not certain. All that we are told is that He answered the interruption in these words, “Who is My mother and My brethren? And then looking round about on them who sat about Him, He saith, Behold My mother and My brethren. For whosoever shall do the will of God, he is My brother, and My sister, and mother.”

I need not say that these words were not really an answer sent to His mother and brethren, but rather a lesson of instruction addressed to those “who sat about Him;” nor can it be necessary to point out to anyone who is familiar with the Gospels, how common a thing it was with our Blessed Lord to direct His answers not so much to the questions that had been put forward, as to the inward thoughts and motives of those who put them; how sometimes He set aside the question altogether as though he had not heard it, yet proceeded to make it the occasion of imparting some general lesson which it suggested. This is precisely what He does now.

Even Dr. Madison almost stumbled into the truth: “On the most generous interpretation, Jesus is here expanding his understanding of family.” Exactly! Jesus took the opportunity to show that He regarded all of His followers (in what would become the Christian Church) as family. Similarly, He told His disciples, “I have called you friends” (Jn 15:15). It doesn’t follow that this is “a rebuff of this kin” (i.e., his immediate family). He simply moved from literal talk of families to a larger conception and vision of of families as those who do “the will of God.” Thus, Jesus habitually used “brethren” to describe those who were not His immediate family:

Matthew 5:47 And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

Matthew 23:8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.

Matthew 25:40 And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’

Matthew 28:10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”

Luke 22:32 “but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

We see that “brethren” is used 191 times in the New Testament, mostly in this sense. So is “brother” (116 times in the New Testament). “Sister” is also used in the epistles, referring to fellow Christians who are female:

Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cen’chre-ae,

1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound.

Philemon 1:2 and Ap’phia our sister and Archip’pus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house:

James 2:15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,

Arguably, all of this might be thought to have started in the words of Jesus here under consideration. It’s not a rebuff of His mother and father and half-brothers and/or cousins (also called “brothers” in the New Testament; Jesus was an only Son); it’s simply the beginning of the Body of Christ, and the Christian Church being regarded as one large, extended family.

Lastly, Jesus refers to His own mother as the mother of John, when He asked His disciple to watch over her after Jesus’ death:

John 19:26-27 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” [27] Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. 

And of course, we have the long tradition of calling priests (in Catholicism and Orthodoxy) “father”: the biblical basis for which, I have written about. And female leaders of nuns and religious are called “Mother”; for example, Mother Teresa; now St. Teresa of Calcutta, or Mother Angelica, who founded EWTN. Monks are called “Brother” and nuns, “Sister,” etc.

Never forget this while reading the gospels: they are theological tracts meant to advance the Christ cult at the time of their composition. It wanted followers who would not put family first. This ‘rebuffing’ text in Mark thus aligns well with the infamous verses, Luke 14:26-27:

• “If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”

This text is quite a challenge for believers who want to revere Jesus as a great moral teacher, but it fits perfectly with the cult mentality of the time. . . . Christians say, “Well, Jesus couldn’t have meant that,” . . . It means exactly what it seems to mean.

Not at all, as I showed in a past refutation of the same argument from Dr. Madison, and also a related one, having to do with Jesus’ falsely alleged hostility to families.

***

Photo credit: Christ Appearing to His Mother (1496), by Juan de Flandes (fl. by 1496–1519) [public domain / Picryl]

***

Archaeological Support / Sin, Illness, Healing, & Faith / “Word” & “Gospel”  

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: “A Charming Bible Story… and Its Bad Theology: another installment of the fantasy novel” (3-23-18).

It’s no surprise that Jesus was impressed, seeing a man being lowered through the ceiling: “When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’”

The religious bureaucrats who heard this were shocked: “Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” But Jesus would have none of it:

“Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and take your mat and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— ‘I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home.’”

Have you been paying attention? If this were anybody else, we would say, “Such a blowhard”—claiming to heal someone to prove he had authority to forgive sins. But that’s a minor point. The implication of this story is that physical affliction is a consequence of sin, and that, once sin is forgiven, the body can be repaired. While we’re charmed by the image of a paralytic being lowered through the roof to reach Jesus, we shouldn’t suspend critical thinking, even though this is a beloved Bible story (well, especially because it is). It would be good to know where this story came from. Those who believe Mark reports “true stories”—i.e., that the gospels are history—never seem to wonder what Mark’s sources were. 

To the latter question: presumably from the robust oral tradition of early Christianity: energized by abundant eyewitness testimony. I showed in my previous installment that the tidbit about a sick man being lowered through the roof is supported by archaeology. This was after Dr. Madison ludicrously exclaimed that there was “no way—none at all—to determine if there is any history at all in his [Mark’s] narratives.”

Here’s a little helpful tip to those of you interested in either apologetics or logic and debate in general: don’t assert sweeping universal negatives. It will come back to haunt and embarrass you every time. All I had to do to knock this down was find one example of the Gospel of Mark being supported by secular archaeology and historiography. I found six in one article (in about three minutes of Google searching); and so Dr. Madison’s wild statement was refuted.

As to sin being the reason the man was sick, Jesus refutes this notion elsewhere:

John 9:1-3 (RSV) As he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. [2] And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” [3] Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.

Luke 13:1-5 There were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. [2] And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus? [3] I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. [4] Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Silo’am fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem? [5] I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

This sort of worthless speculation and thinking was disposed of in the book of Job, many centuries earlier. God describes Job: “there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil” (1:8; cf. 2:3). Yet the entire book is about his extreme sufferings. Obviously, the teaching and “moral” of that book is not that he suffered because of his sins, but rather, in a state of extraordinary holiness. I deal with these sorts of issues regarding healing, in-depth, in my paper, Is It Always God’s Will to Heal?: Biblical Refutation of “Hyperfaith” / “Name-It-Claim-It” Teaching.

One thing we do know is that the thinking reflected here—let’s face it, this is bad theology—has caused a lot of damage. It has seeped into Christian thinking that suffering is one of the ways that God punishes us. How much anguish have people suffered—on top of the pain of illness—because they’re sure that God is getting even with them? Double this anguish if people think that God is hurting others as well, to get even.

Yes, this is false theology (I completely agree), but it’s not the theology of Jesus or the Bible. Dr. Madison states that “The implication of this story is that physical affliction is a consequence of sin” but this doesn’t follow at all. Jesus didn’t say that (and stated the contrary at least twice, as just shown). He simply said to the man, “My son, your sins are forgiven” (Mk 2:5b). He never said that his sins had caused his paralysis. In fact, the immediate context explains why He said that: because He “saw their faith” (2:5a; cf. Mt 9:2; Lk 5:20).

In other words, saying he was forgiven was due to Jesus’ knowledge and observation that he and his friends were faithful: which state brings about forgiveness and absolution (which has nothing to do with his physical condition). This ties into other similar sayings of Jesus when He healed. He is recorded in the Gospels saying no less than six times: “your faith has made you well” (Mt 9:22; Mk 5:34; 10:52; Lk 8:48; 17:19; 18:42).

So yes, it was cool that a disabled man was lowered through the roof to meet Jesus; yes, it was cool that Jesus healed him (or so the story goes). But linking his paralysis with unknown, undisclosed sins was not cool at all.

If that had actually occurred, I would agree, but of course it did not, as just shown. It’s simply another “Madison myth”: one of a great many that I will be exposing and refuting as I proceed through this long (and tedious) series.

We find one of the most famous sayings of Jesus in the next episode in Mark 2. Jesus recruited the tax collector Levi to follow him, then went to his house, where he was in the company of “sinners and tax collectors.” When religious bureaucrats again raised their eyebrows, Jesus replied, “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.” (v. 17) And, rightly so, this is one of the feel-good saying of Jesus.

I appreciate Dr. Madison’s approbation of Jesus. What would we do without it?

But Mark keeps the message vague. At the outset of the chapter, with all those people crammed into Jesus’ house, we read “…he was speaking the word to them.” (v. 2) And now, in the Levi episode, Jesus says that be had come to “call” on certain people. What was “the word,” and what was Jesus calling people to?

The “word” or “word of God” is equivalent in the New Testament to the Gospel and also “true apostolic tradition” (including Old Testament inspired revelation; the Ten Commandments and other tenets of the moral law): the salvation message of God’s free gift of grace, mercy, and salvation through acceptance of Christ’s work on our behalf. Jesus clarifies much of this in chapter 7:

Mark 7:5-13 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?” [6] And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, `This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; [7] in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ [8] You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.” [9] And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!  [10] For Moses said, `Honor your father and your mother’; and, `He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die’; [11] but you say, `If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God) — [12] then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, [13] thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do.” (cf. Mk 4:14-20, 33: eight usages of “the word”)

“The gospel” also appears in Mark eight times (1:1, 14-15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; 16:15). It’s simply the summation of Jesus’ message, seen throughout the book.

Read the gospel of Mark carefully—and what’s missing? There is little focus at all on ethical teaching. Jesus’ primary message in Mark is the soon-to-arrive Kingdom of God…which never arrived.

I thoroughly dealt with this charge about the kingdom never arriving in the last installment.

So, bottom line: “the word” was probably not moral teaching; Jesus was calling people to commit to his delusion.

It was the gospel, etc., as just explained.

The Son of Man didn’t descended [sic] through the clouds, as was so enthusiastically promised and predicted as well by the apostle Paul. This is one of the big New Testament failures that the church has had to finesse.

Sheer nonsense. These false charges have been dealt in another one of my numerous refutations of Dr. Madison.

Somehow, the idea that abstaining from food, as a way to get right with God, has gained traction in multiple religious traditions.

Fasting and abstinence was long established part of the Jewish religion: continued on into Christianity (especially during Lent). It’s not complicated: the idea is heroic renunciation of good (in and of themselves) physical things in order to concentrate more intensely on spiritual things.

We read in Mark 2:18 that the disciples of John the Baptist fasted—no surprise there, since he was known for his asceticism; but the Pharisees also saw fasting as an essential component of piety. Asked why his disciples didn’t go along with the practice, at least for the present:

“Jesus said to them, ‘The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day.’”

There is a time for everything under the sun (Ecc 3:1-8).

With this Jesus script, Mark introduces a theme that will be developed later, especially in Matthew 25:1-13, i.e., the Parable of the Ten Virgins. There, Jesus displays a nasty streak in his role as the bridegroom. This motif is part of Mark’s message about the coming Kingdom of God.

I fail to see what is “nasty” about the parable. The moral is that we must be wise with the gifts and graces that God has given us. If not, we may be lost in the end (“the door was shut”: 25:10). The choice is ours. It’s no more “nasty” for God to judge disobedience to His laws (and for Jesus, Who is God, to teach this in His parables) than it is for earthly judges  to judge disobeying of legislative laws. It’s just silly to insinuate otherwise.

In the final episode of Mark 2 we find another famous Jesus pronouncement: “And he said to them, ‘The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.’” (v.27) In this scene Jesus had been criticized because his disciples had been plucking grain on the Sabbath, which amounted to doing work. Hey, kudos to Mark/Jesus for this bold statement. This is a progressive outlook, after all, i.e., religious rules are made for the benefit of people, who are not created to conform to divine edict.

But here’s an interesting twist: when Matthew and Luke copied this story, they deleted verse 27…just skipped right over it! Seems they preferred a less radical Jesus. (…so you see, all four gospel writers make Jesus say what they want him to say). But all three synoptic authors included Jesus’ claim in verse 28: “…the son of man is lord even of the sabbath.”

If three people set out to write the same story, they will all include some common details and also have some exclusive to their story which aren’t in the others. This is a no-brainer and a non-starter. The essence of what was being talked about is present in all three accounts. No need to get conspiratorial. But then, what would “atheist exegesis” [choke / cough] be without this sort of inane foolishness?

The same people who habitually (almost by nature) complain and lie about the evangelists and other Bible writers (including Jesus) supposedly lying constantly and conspiring all over the place, constantly do precisely that in their own polemics. This is but one of innumerable unproven, arbitrary examples in Dr. Madison’s ongoing sophistry. How ironic and sad, huh?

***

Photo credit: The Disciples Eat Wheat on the Sabbath, by James Tissot (1836-1902) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Why Did Mark Omit Jesus’ Baptism? / Why Was Jesus Baptized? / “Suffering Servant” & Messiah in Isaiah / Spiritual “Kingdom of God” / Archaeological Support

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: Did Jesus Graduate from Hogwarts?: The problems pile on, right from the start (2-16-18).

Problem Number 1: A Big Omission

It has been a source of some anxiety among theologians that Mark begins his story with Jesus as an adult: There is no mention whatever of a virgin birth. Why would Mark leave that out? For starters, of course, he may never have heard this story associated with Jesus. The apostle Paul, who had written a couple of decades earlier, hadn’t heard of it either—at least, he never mentions it.

Apologist J. Warner Wallace deals with this:

While it is true that Mark does not include a birth narrative, this does not mean that he was either unaware of the truth about Jesus or denied the virgin conception. Eyewitnesses often omit important details because they either (1) have other concerns they want to highlight with greater priority, or (2) presume that the issue under question is already well understood. The gospel of Mark exhibits great influence from the Apostle Peter. In fact, the outline of Mark’s Gospel is very similar to the outline of Peter’s first sermon at Pentecost. According to the Papias, Mark was Peter’s scribe; his gospel is brief and focused. Like Peter’s sermon in Chapter 2 of the Book of Act’s, Mark is focused only on the public life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. But Mark is not alone in omitting the birth narrative. John’s gospel is considered by scholars to be the last Gospel written. The prior three “synoptic Gospels” were already in circulation and the issue of the virgin conception had already been described in two of them. Yet John also omitted the birth narrative. Why? John clearly wanted to cover material that the other Gospel writers did not address; over 90% of the material in the Gospel of John is unique to the text. If John did not agree with the virgin conception as described in the Gospels of Matthew or Luke, he certainly had the opportunity to correct the matter in his own work. But John never does this; his silence serves as a presumption that the “virgin conception” has been accurately described by prior authors. . . .

At the same time, Mark does not appear to be ignorant of the “virgin conception”. Note, for example, that Mark uses an unusual expression related to Jesus’ parentage:

Mark 6:1-3 Jesus went out from there and came into His hometown ; and His disciples followed Him. When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue ; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands ? “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon ? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him.

It is highly unusual for the “many listeners” in this first century Jewish culture to describe Jesus as the “son of Mary” rather than the “son of Joseph”. These first century eyewitnesses of Jesus apparently knew something about Jesus’ birth narrative and chose to trace Jesus’ lineage back through His mother rather than through His father (as would customarily have been the case). This early reference in the Gospel of Mark may expose the fact that Mark was aware of the “virgin conception” . . . (“Why Doesn’t Mark Say Anything About Jesus’ Birth?”, Cold-Case Christianity, 12-11-15)

Problem Number 2: Baptism for the Forgiveness of Sins

We read in vv. 4-5: “John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.”

Just what Jesus should do, right? Well, no. Why would the perfect, sinless son of God show up to be baptized? Mark’s naiveté has bothered theologians—starting with Matthew, who maneuvered to avoid this embarrassment. He adds extra script, i.e., that John the Baptist objected (3:14): “John would have prevented him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” Jesus seems to say, “True, but let’s do it for appearances.” “But Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness’” (v. 3:15). In John’s gospel Jesus doesn’t even set foot in the water. John says that he saw the spirit descend on Jesus “as a dove from heaven,” and declares, “Here is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

Catholic writer Kirsten Andersen explains:

Since Jesus didn’t have any sins that needed forgiving (original or otherwise), was already fully himself and fully God’s son and had no need of salvation, baptism would seem redundant . . .

So what’s the deal? Why did Jesus insist on receiving baptism from John, even though John himself flat-out objected, arguing that it was Jesus who should baptize him?

The easy answer is that Jesus was simply setting the example for his followers. “WWJD” bracelets may be out-of-fashion and clichéd, but they do express the rather profound truth that as long as we keep our eyes on Jesus, and do what he showed us how to do in both word and deed, salvation can be ours. . . .

[T]he baptism Jesus received from John wasn’t the same sacrament we celebrate today. How could it have been? Jesus had not yet established his Church, so the sacraments didn’t exist yet. The “baptisms” John performed were actually ritual washings (mikveh/pl. mikvaot) given to converting and reverting Jews, symbolizing the death of one’s old, sinful self, and rebirth as a ritually clean Jew.

Mikvaot were commonly performed to cleanse Jews of any sins and ritual impurities before presenting themselves at the temple, . . . (“If Jesus Was Sinless, Why Did He Need to Be Baptized?,” Aleteia, 1-8-16)

Catholic writer Cale Clark cites Pope Benedict XVI (writing before he was pope), explaining another symbolic aspect of Jesus’ baptism:

Pope Benedict XVI (writing as Joseph Ratzinger), in his Jesus of Nazareth [2004] offers some illuminating insights on all this. There’s a whole chapter in the book on Jesus’ baptism, but here are a few of his key thoughts.

First, in antiquity water conjured up two distinct images: death and life. Benedict notes:

On the one hand, immersion into the waters is a symbol of death, which recalls the death symbolism of the annihilating, destructive power of the ocean flood. The ancient mind perceived the ocean as a permanent threat to the cosmos, to the earth; it was the primeval flood that might submerge all life . . . But the flowing waters of the river are above all a symbol of life (15-16).

Even the physical act of baptism, especially baptism by immersion, represents death and new life: the descent into the waters is a form of death and burial; the rising to a new life is an icon of resurrection.

Looking at the events (of Christ’s baptism) in light of the Cross and Resurrection, the Christian people realized what happened: Jesus loaded the burden of all mankind’s guilt upon his shoulders; he bore it down into the depths of the Jordan. He inaugurated his public activity by stepping into the place of sinners. His inaugural gesture is an anticipation of the Cross. He is, as it were, the true Jonah who said to the crew of the ship, ”Take me and throw me into the sea” (Jon. 1:12) . . . The baptism is an acceptance of death for the sins of humanity, and the voice that calls out “This is my beloved Son” over the baptismal waters is an anticipatory reference to the Resurrection. This also explains why, in his own discourses, Jesus uses the word “baptism” to refer to his death (18).

The Eastern traditions of iconography pick up on many of these themes, as the current pope emeritus elucidates:

The icon of Jesus’ baptism depicts the water as a liquid tomb having the form of a dark cavern, which is in turn the iconographic sign of Hades, the underworld, or hell. Jesus’ descent into this watery tomb, into this inferno that envelops him from every side, is thus an anticipation of his act of descending into the underworld . . . John Chrysostom writes: “Going down into the water and emerging again are the image of the descent into hell and the Resurrection” (19). (“Why Jesus Was Baptized,” Catholic Answers, 1-9-18)

Problem Number 3: The Powerful Savior Myth

John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness to “prepare the way of the Lord”—“the one who is more powerful than I is coming after me” (v.7). These texts—and many others like them—usher us into the world of delusional thinking that seeks to bend history to fit theology. The Chosen People had been oppressed for centuries—which was inexplicable. What was the way out of this? It’ll be magic: There is a hero on the way, a messiah, one specially anointed by God, who will set things right. Thus one of the main themes of Mark is the proclamation of Jesus that the “the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near” (v. 15).

But that didn’t happen. God has not intervened in human history to make everything better. When hope faded that the Son of Man would descend to Earth to establish the kingdom of God, Christian theologians made the adjustment: it became a “spiritual” reality. But we’re still dealing with a form of hero worship: “Here is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

What? Someone can actually do that? Whether it’s intervening in history to rescue the Chosen People, or “taking away the sins of the world,” it’s wishful thinking, theology denying reality. This is the Superman fantasy, and outside of the ‘messiah’ version of it, nobody takes it seriously. Of course, in our own time, there have been so many spin-off super-heroes; this is fun fantasy, nothing more.

The Jews for centuries had had a dual notion of the Messiah: that of the Suffering Servant and of the conquering king. So this was nothing new. Educated Christians knew the Old Testament. It included Isaiah 53, which is the famous passage of the Messiah suffering. There was no huge [implied, dishonest] “adjustment” made by the time the Gospels were written. Whereas during the time of Jesus it was understandable that some thought that the messianic kingdom was to be established, and the end of the age was near, after He died, of course it was understood that He was the suffering servant, and that the “triumphant” messianism had to await His second Coming. In the meantime, Jesus made salvation possible by His redemptive death; and that is quite enough itself.

Dr. Madison acts as if John the Baptist was proclaiming a superhero and the messianic earthy kingdom: fulfilled in Jesus. If so, how odd that he referred to Him as follows: “”Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (Jn 1:29, RSV). That’s the suffering Messiah of Isaiah 53. The Jews at the time couldn’t misinterpret the analogy of the Passover Lamb that was sacrificed. Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was also at the time of Passover.

Mark cites Isaiah 40:3: “A voice cries: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.'” Isaiah 40:1-26 is a triumphant passage of hope. God was going to deliver the Israelites. But as always in the Old Testament, such deliverance was conditional upon obedience. And once again, as so often, God didn’t receive that, as the grand narrative of the magnificent book of Isaiah continues. Thus, we see the beginning of this discontent in the same chapter:

Isaiah 40:27 Why do you say, O Jacob, and speak, O Israel, “My way is hid from the LORD, and my right is disregarded by my God”? (cf. 49:14: “. . . “The LORD has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me.”)

God in effect responds to this rebellion and rejection in Isaiah chapters 41-47. Isaiah 42 describes what could have been, had Israel been obedient. But it was not, and Israel’s exile came about as a result (43:22-28). Then Babylon is judged for opposing Israel (chapters 46-47). Isaiah 48 is God’s response to Israel’s rebellion. God declares:

Isaiah 48:6 . . . From this time forth I make you hear new things, hidden things which you have not known.

The text then highlights the “Servant” (chapters 49-55) which represents both the Messiah and the nation of Israel (prophecies often have multiple applications in Scripture). The Servant’s mission is to Israel first, then “as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (49:6). But the “Servant” is also rejected:

Isaiah 49:7 . . . one deeply despised, abhorred by the nations . . .

Isaiah 50:6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard; I hid not my face from shame and spitting.

Nevertheless the Servant continues to proclaim a message of good news (chapters 51-52). But what happens next is that the full suffering of the Servant is revealed: and its purpose:

Isaiah 52:13-53:12 Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. [14] As many were astonished at him — his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men — [15] so shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they shall see, and that which they have not heard they shall understand. [1] Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? [2] For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. [3] He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [4] Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. [5] But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. [6] All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. [7] He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. [8] By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? [9] And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. [10] Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand; [11] he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities. [12] Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

All of this, of course, is a prophecy of exactly what would happen with Jesus Christ: God the Son / Son of God. He came as the expected Messiah, but was rejected and killed on the cross. But this was God’s plan to save mankind. Many missed that (included all those who rejected Jesus Christ), but it was there in plain view, in Isaiah (written many centuries before). And this is the backdrop of the Gospel presentation of the life and mission of Jesus. Precisely for this reason, Jesus cited Isaiah in public, in a synagogue, at the beginning of His public ministry, in his own hometown of Nazareth:

Luke 4:16-21 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; [17] and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written, [18] “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, [19] to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” [20] And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. [21] And he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

After He said a bit more, here was the response:

Luke 4:28-29 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. [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.

Jesus was citing Isaiah 61:1-2 and also 58:6. He was thus claiming to be the Old Testament Servant, who was the Messiah. It was all foretold in the Old Testament before any Gospel writer was born. So to make out that they “invented” the whole story because Jesus disappointed their expectations and failed to reign triumphant over all mankind, and was instead tortured and killed, is ludicrous. Mark’s Gospel recounts the same incident, but only in bare outline: Jesus was “in his own country” (6:1), taught in the synagogue (6:2), the people “took offense” (6:3), and Jesus noted that a prophet is not honored in his home town (6:4; cf. Lk 4:24). Matthew’s account (13:54-58) is similar to Mark’s.

[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.]

Problem Number 7: The Message Without Substance 

We’ll be searching for the substance of Jesus’s message as we make our way through Mark, but we don’t get many clues in the first chapter. . . . But what “astounded and amazed” them—other than roughing up the demons? What was the message that he taught with authority? Mark neglects to give us the details.

So what? It’s only the first chapter of sixteen. He’ll get to it. Mark chose in this chapter to highlight his baptism and early healings and casting out of demons. But of course, chapters were only added to the Bible in the 13th century: by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury. They first appeared in a Bible with Wycliffe’s English version of 1382. The Old Testament was first divided into verses in 1448, and the New Testament in 1555 (surprisingly, after Martin Luther’s death!).

We observe that Jesus starts revealing more of His mission and message in what we now call chapter 2.

We will see that Jesus talks a lot about the anticipated kingdom of God—which never showed up, by the way.

As with many words and phrases in the Bible, it has more than one meaning. It’s obvious in many passages that “kingdom of God” (and the equivalent “kingdom of heaven”: used only by Matthew) in the New Testament referred to a spiritual reality, as opposed to the physical and “institutional” messianic kingdom to come. Again, this was no cynical “evolution” or rationalization after the fact of an alleged massive disenchantment of early Christians (one of Dr. Madison’s recurring false assertions). It was foreshadowed in the Old Testament in the motif of changed “hearts” that served and followed God: especially in Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Jeremiah 32:40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.

Also, being inhabited by God’s “spirit” in the Old Testament was a precursor to Pentecost and all Christians being indwelt by the Holy Spirit (essentially, being in the kingdom of God; regenerated, justified, sanctified, etc.):

Numbers 11:29 But Moses said to him, “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD’s people were prophets, that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!”

Psalm 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy Spirit from me.

Isaiah 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations.

Isaiah 44:3 I will pour my Spirit upon your descendants, and my blessing on your offspring.

Isaiah 59:21 “And as for me, this is my covenant with them, says the LORD: my spirit which is upon you, and my words which I have put in your mouth, . . .” (cf. 63:11)

Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. (cf. 37:14; 39:29)

Joel 2:28 “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; . . .” (cf. 2:29; Hag 2:5)

Zechariah 7:12 . . . the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. . . . (cf. 4:6)

Here are some of Jesus’ many uses of these phrases in a strictly spiritual sense:

Matthew 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (cf. Lk 6:20)

Matthew 11:12 “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force.”

Matthew 12:28 “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

Matthew 19:12 “For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. . . .”

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.” [this is the famous “rich young ruler” incident. Jesus appears to define the term as “eternal life” (19:16, 29), or spiritual “life” (19:17), or “treasure in heaven” (19:21), or being “saved” (19:25) ]

Mark 12:34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” . . .

Luke 7:28 “I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”

Luke 10:9 “heal the sick in it and say to them, `The kingdom of God has come near to you.'”

Luke 11:20 “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

No matter how confident the faithful are that Mark is telling the “true story of Jesus,” this is not biography. Mark fails to qualify as a historian; we have no way—none at all—to determine if there is any history at all in his narratives. Mark was a theologian who had a talent for the creation of religious fantasy literature.

Why are we not impressed, let alone convinced? [my bolding added, to highlight the sweeping absurdity of the false claim]

Well, I say it’s because he has apparently not read about any of the abundant New Testament archaeological evidences of its accuracy. The following article alone has six archaeological confirmations (i.e., scientific findings, completely separate from religious faith) of the Gospel of Mark (a word-search can locate them):

“Archaeology and the Historical Reliability of the New Testament” (Peter S. Williams)

As a second example, archaeologists in 2013 believed that they found the town of Dalmanutha, along the sea of Galilee, mentioned in Mark 8:10. I ran across three articles about it (one / two / three).

***

Photo credit: 22Kartika (3-28-14). Located inside Maria Kerep Cave, Ambarawa, Indonesia [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

Gospels as “Con Job”? / Parables & Repentance / Old Testament Sacrifices & Jesus / “Weird” Mark 16 / Why Jesus Was Killed

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 his Introduction to Mark, “Getting the Gospels Off on the Wrong Foot: The strange Jesus in Mark’s story” (1-19-18).

The Christian church has managed to pull off one of the biggest con jobs in history.

One readily perceives that Dr. Madison is perhaps not the most objective and fair observer of the Christianity that he forsook, doesn’t one? Sun Tzu, a contemporary of the prophet Jeremiah, wrote in The Art of War in the 6th century BC: “If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

The laity trusted their priests that Christ the Redeemer was all that mattered; hence the down-and-dirty details in the gospels went unnoticed. 

Ignorance is always at a premium in any large social / religious [or any type of] group — no argument there. Take a look at, for example, any combox at the Debunking Christianity site where Dr. Madison posts, for ample confirmation. But this is silly as a sweeping generalization, since all Catholics, at least, have heard a great deal of Bible reading from the pulpit (especially the Gospels) at Mass every week. We’re not as stupid and clueless as Dr. Madison would like his readers to believe. And he’s not nearly as “smart”: as I continue to repeatedly demonstrate, if I do say so: insofar as he thinks he has made mincemeat of the Bible. 

If you accept the Jesus of Mark’s gospel, you are well on the way to full-throttle crazy religion.

Well, we’ll see about that, won’t we? Dr. Madison, I submit, exhibits far more fanaticism and distemper in his anti-theist atheism than the average Christian I have known (and I’ve known a million of them these past 42 years).

The other gospel writers, in their spinning of Jesus fiction, carried on the tradition of invention, . . . 

As I stated in the generic introduction above, I will not entertain arbitrary and foolish silliness of this sort (just to make that crystal clear). I’m here to defend the text as we have it and to show that Dr. Madison’s assertions are logically fallacious or factually incorrect.

Gospel experts, of the apologetic Christian variety, won’t hear any of this. . . . they devote their careers to smoothing out rough edges and erasing Jesus blemishes.

And Dr. Madison devotes his Bible-bashing “career” (or prevalent pastime?) to running from every critique of his arguments; or at least that’s how it’s always been with me, thus far, and I am a professional Christian / Catholic apologist, after all. I make arguments that I find plausible and defensible (or else I wouldn’t bother making them), and I can hardly change my mind if there is no counter-reply at all.

In the many instances in my life where I have undergone a major change of mind, it was always through substantive but cordial interaction with critics of a different view. Thinkers engage in back-and-forth dialogue. But demagogues and propagandists split at the first whiff of opposition to their infallible ideas.

(1) Jesus was an exorcist. 

This is most vividly illustrated by the story in Mark 5:1-13, in which Jesus transfers demons from a severely mentally ill man into a herd of pigs. See what I mean by full-throttle crazy? Mark depicts Jesus talking to, bargaining with, the demons. Is this really the worldview that Christians these days want to adopt? Well, maybe so, since many Christians believe in ghosts, angels and dead saints who hear prayers—and demons, apparently.

Yes, this is Christianity. We believe in all those things, including Satan. But of course, this would lead into a huge exterior discussion on Christian ontology / metaphysics and the existence of the supernatural. It’s simply too complex to get into in the middle of textual discussions. Dr. Madison obviously has a virulently anti-supernatural view, and he is on the level of thinking anyone who believes in these things as nuts. There is no discussion with that, and I can’t follow every rabbit trail that he brings up, anyway, or I wouldn’t have enough time in my entire life to reply to his hostile contentions.

(2) Jesus tried to fool people by teaching in parables. 

Of course, this doesn’t make sense. What was Mark thinking? But here it is, Mark 4:10-12, which includes a quotation from Isaiah 6:9-10:

“When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, ‘To you has been given the secret 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.’”

I thoroughly disposed of this objection in my paper, “Madison vs. Jesus #7: God Prohibits Some Folks’ Repentance?”

It’s odd because—ooops—in John’s gospel, Jesus doesn’t teach in parables.

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;”

(3) Jesus believed in human sacrifice to get right with God.

This is a vestige of animal sacrifice superstition, and is a fine specimen of magical thinking: How can killing an animal cancel human sin? Why would a good god set up such a scheme?

I guess in the same way that He set up the animal kingdom, including meat-eating, which also required the killing of animals (which is also a feature of evolution and nature: construed as utterly self-governed [i.e., materialistic evolution], without any supervision by God). Or is Dr. Madison a vegetarian? Something tells me that he is not.

It’s not that animal blood has intrinsic magical or curative properties. It’s simply the symbolism that God ordained: to show human beings the seriousness of sin. The writer of Hebrews expressly denied that the old covenant system of animal sacrifice actually took away sins:

Hebrews 10:1-4, 11 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near. [2] Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered? If the worshipers had once been cleansed, they would no longer have any consciousness of sin. [3] But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year. [4] For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. . . . [11] And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 

Even in the Old Testament, there are many indications that the sacrificial system was to be abolished, and was never the most important thing: righteousness and obedience to God’s commands were that:

Proverbs 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD, but the prayer of the upright is his delight.

Amos 5:12, 14, 21-24 For I know how many are your transgressions, and how great are your sins — you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and turn aside the needy in the gate. . . . [14] Seek good, and not evil, that you may live; and so the LORD, the God of hosts, will be with you, as you have said . . . [21] I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. [22] Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts I will not look upon. [23] Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. [24] But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Jesus reflected these thoughts in the New Testament:

Matthew 9:13 “Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice’. . . .” (cf. 12:7)

He was citing the Hebrew Bible:

Hosea 6:6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings.

In other words, if and when the Israelites were rebellious against God and His laws and wicked, their sacrifices (far from being “magic”) meant absolutely nothing to God, and accomplished nothing. This is a constant motif in the Old Testament. The law, including these animal sacrifices, was never intended from the beginning to save men. Grace and faith in God; Jesus’ redemption accomplished that. Hence, Paul writes:

Galatians 2:16  yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified.

Galatians 3:10-12, 19, 21-26 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.” [11] Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for “He who through faith is righteous shall live”; [12] but the law does not rest on faith, for “He who does them shall live by them.” . . . [19] Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, . . . [21] Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not; for if a law had been given which could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. [22] But the scripture consigned all things to sin, that what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. [23] Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. [24] So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. [25] But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; [26] for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Mark would have us believe that a Galilean peasant got it into his head that he was selected for this mission (10:45): “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” 

He didn’t get “it into his head”: He always knew this, being God and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity from all eternity. Hence, He expressed in many ways, in the Gospels, that He was God.

How can Christians not notice that a human sacrifice to placate God is bad theology?

It’s not a sacrifice as classically understood: like the Aztecs taking some poor child up one of their pyramids to have his or her heart cut out while they were alive, or the heathen tribes who lived around the ancient Israelites, who sacrificed their babies to Moloch (throwing them into a fire). Those things are barbaric.

But this was an act by God (Jesus) to voluntarily suffer and die on our behalf (Mt 20:28; 26:53; Mk 10:45; Lk 19:10; Jn 6:51; 10:10-18; 19:10-11; Gal 2:20; Eph 5:1-2; Phil 2:5-8; 1 Tim 2:5-6; Titus 2:13-14), just as we (to use an imperfect analogy) honor heroes who sacrificed themselves so that others can live (for example, the two young men recently who lost their lives in two of the horrible shooting massacres). This is what Memorial Day is about.

(4) Jesus preached that the Kingdom of God was immanent—and he was wrong. 

The present world order was about to be wiped out, indeed “before this generation passes away”—and it would not be pretty. There would be massive human suffering to mark the initiation of the Kingdom of God. Please, Christians, read Mark 13 and seriously ponder how this fits in with your view of what would Jesus do. Calamities are a sign that God’s get-even theology will be realized; the tone of Mark 13 is urgency, with the closing words “keep watch.” Of course, no Kingdom arrived. Mark 13 is an example of religion gone off rails and closely matches the demented ramblings of the apostle Paul. John Loftus is right in describing Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet.

I already demolished this in my earlier reply: “Dr. David Madison vs. Jesus #3: Nature & Time of 2nd Coming.”

(5) Jesus the great moral teacher fails to show up.

[. . .]

Moreover, there are comments in this gospel for which Jesus deserves demerits; we expect far better from a great moral teacher. His counsel on divorce at 10:9, for example, is inexplicable and irresponsible. Yes, we can understand that God created male and female—and expects a man to leave his parents to get married. But that does not mean that God has been matchmaker for every couple that ever was: “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” In fact, this is a mindless non sequitur—and has caused so much misery.

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

Jesus gets a very poor grade as well for this bit of cult fanaticism, 10:29-30: “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.” You will be rewarded for leaving your family? You’ll get a new set of relatives and new houses? How can Christians be comfortable with this?

This is covered in my paper, Madison vs. Jesus #5: Cultlike Forsaking of Family?

(6) [What] did Jesus mean with this list?

What more could you want? It’s the resurrected Jesus who explains that “those who believe” will be able to do these five things (Mark 16:16-18):

1. Cast out demons (yes, we’re back to demons)
2. Speak in new tongues
3. Pick up snakes
4. Drink any deadly thing
5. Lay hands on people to heal them

Those who want to distance themselves from this text can point out that these verses were not in the original gospel: Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition. No one knows where this part of chapter 16 came from. But those want to dismiss these verses are admitting that fake news about Jesus made it into the New Testament. Alas, however, we don’t know where any of Mark’s gospel came from; maybe it’s all fake news. This list may not be from the mouth of Jesus, but whoever thought it up certainly had a goofy take on Christianity.

But, hey, here’s the challenge for apologists who insist that the gospels are based on eyewitness accounts and highly reliable oral tradition. These six items I’ve listed: Do you really want to argue that these reflect authentic Jesus information?

Yes.

Is this strange Jesus the one you want?

It’s not strange if rightly understood. What is strange is an educated man like Dr. Madison routinely getting things dead wrong in his analyses of the Bible and Jesus. I wrote about this topic, too, in this post of mine: Dr. David Madison vs. Jesus #2: Weird & Fictional Mark 16? He obviously recycled a lot of these whoppers in his more recent podcasts that I refuted. But (hate to break the news) simply repeating a lousy argument doesn’t make it any stronger.

Maybe, after all, there’s a glimpse of history at Mark 3:21, where we find that Jesus’s family wasn’t too thrilled about his vocation. “When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, ‘He has gone out of his mind.’”

That sounds about right to me.

Yeah, me, too (but for the opposite reasons). Great human beings are routinely vastly misunderstood. For example, here is the gist of what Plato wrote about the cause of Socrates’ persecution and death, in his Apology: