![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/08\/JesusPetersMother-in-law.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This is an installment of my series of replies to an article by Dr. David Madison<\/a>:\u00a0a pastor in the Methodist Church for nine years, who has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University. It\u2019s called,\u00a0\u201cThings We Wish Jesus Hadn\u2019t Said\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(Debunking Christianity<\/em>, 7-21-19). His words will be in\u00a0blue\u00a0<\/span>below. Dr. Madison makes several \u201cgeneric\u201d digs at Jesus and Christianity, in the written portion (it details a series of 12 podcasts):<\/p>\n A challenge for Christians: If you\u2019re so sure Jesus existed, then you have some explaining to do. A major frustration is that, while believers are indignant at all the talk about Jesus not existing, they don\u2019t know the issues that fuel the skepticism\u2014and are unwilling to inform themselves.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, I\u2019m up to the \u201cchallenge.\u201d No problem at all. I\u2019m not threatened or \u201cscared\u201d by this in the slightest. It\u2019s what I do, as an apologist. The question is whether\u00a0Dr. Madison<\/em>\u00a0is up to interacting with\u00a0counter-critiques<\/em>? Or will he act like the voluminous anti-theist atheist polemicist Bob Seidensticker?: who directly challenged me in one of his own comboxes to respond to his innumerable attack-pieces against Christianity and the Bible, and then courageously proceeded to\u00a0utterly ignore<\/em>\u00a0my 35 specific critiques<\/a>\u00a0of his claims as of this writing. We shall soon see which course Dr. Madison will decide to take. Anyway, he also states in his post and combox:<\/p>\n [S]o many of the words of Jesus are genuinely shocking. These words aren\u2019t proclaimed much from the pulpit, . . . Hence the folks in the pews have absorbed and adored an idealized Jesus. Christian apologists make their livings refiguring so many of the things Jesus supposedly said.<\/span><\/p>\n The gospels are riddled with contradictions and bad theology, and Jesus is so frequently depicted as a cult fanatic\u2014because cult fanatics wrote the gospels. We see Jesus only through their theological filters. I just want to grab hold of Christian heads (standing behind them, with a hand on each ear) and force them to look straight ahead, unflinchingly, at the gospels, and then ask \u201cTell me what you see!\u201d uncoached by apologist specialists, i.e., priests and pastors, who\u2019ve had a lot of practice making bad texts look good. . . .\u00a0I DO say, \u201cDeal with the really bad stuff in the gospels.\u201d Are you SURE you\u2019ve not make a big mistake endorsing this particular Lord and Savior? That\u2019s the whole point of this series of Flash Podcasts, because a helluva lot of Christians would agree, right away, that these quotes are bad news\u2014if no one told then that they\u2019ve been attributed to Jesus.<\/span><\/p>\n Of course, Dr. Madison \u2014 good anti-theist atheist that he is \u2014 takes the view that we are not at all\u00a0sure<\/em>\u00a0whether Jesus in fact said\u00a0anything<\/em>\u00a0recorded in the Gospels in the first place. I don\u2019t play that game, because there is no end to it. It\u2019s like trying to pin jello to the wall. The atheist always has their convenient out (when refuted in argument about some biblical text) that Jesus never said it\u00a0anyway<\/em>\u00a0[wink wink and sly patronizing grin], and\/or that the biblical text in question was simply added later by dishonest ultra-biased Christian partisans and propagandists. It\u2019s a silly and ultimately intellectually dishonest game, and so I always refuse to play it with atheists or anyone else, because there is no way to \u201cwin\u201d with such an absurdly stacked, purely subjective deck.<\/p>\n In my defense of biblical texts, I start with the assumption that the manuscripts we have are quite sufficient for us to know what is in the Bible (believe it or not). Going on from there, I simply defend particular [supposedly \u201cdifficult\u201d] texts, and note with appropriate argumentation, that \u201chere, the Bible teaches so-and-so,\u201d etc. I deal with the texts\u00a0as they exist<\/em>. I don\u2019t get into the endlessly arbitrary, subjective games that atheists and theologically liberal biblical skeptics play with the texts, in their self-serving textual criticism.<\/p>\n Dr. Madison himself (fortunately) grants my outlook in terms of\u00a0practical<\/em>\u00a0\u201cx vs. y\u201d debate purposes:\u00a0\u201cFor the sake of argument, I\u2019m willing to say, okay, Jesus was real and, yes, we have gospels that tell the story.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>And in the combox:\u00a0\u201cSo, we can go along with their insistence that he did exist. We\u2019ll play on their field, i.e., the gospels.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Good! So we shall examine his cherry-picked texts and see whether his interpretations of them can stand up to scrutiny. He is issuing challenges, and I as an apologist will be dishing a bunch of my own right back to him. Two can play this game. I will be dealing honestly with his challenges. Will he\u00a0return<\/em>\u00a0the favor, and engage in serious and substantive dialogue? Again, we\u2019ll soon know what his reaction will be. A true dialogue is of a confident, inquisitive, \u201cnothing to fear and everything to gain\u201d\u00a0back-and-forth<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0interactive<\/em>\u00a0nature, not merely \u201cships passing in the night\u201d or what I call \u201cmutual monologue.\u201d<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Dr. Madison\u2019s fifth podcast of twelve is entitled: \u201cOn Mark 10:29-30, on Jesus\u2019 promise of a hundred-fold return if people give up families and houses.\u201d<\/a> Here is that passage:<\/span><\/p>\n Mark 10:29-30<\/strong> (RSV)\u00a0Jesus said, \u201cTruly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel,\u00a0[30] who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n All the Gospel writers were propagandists for the early Jesus cult. They wanted followers who would be loyal to nothing but<\/em> the cult. Not even family<\/em> should matter. . . . This is what cult fanatics do and say. They make outrageous promises . . . Christianity has specialized in this deception, as has so many other cults throughout the ages. . . . This Jesus quote is utterly mindless . . . Now Jesus enthusiasts, Jesus defenders may say that this is just exaggeration to make a point. But it falls into the pattern of cult leaders making wild promises to sucker people in. This is religion at its worst: right there in the Gospel.<\/span><\/p>\n Protestant apologist Glenn Miller responds to this sort of charge in his article,<\/span> \u201cJesus versus Family Values?\u201d<\/a> (1994):<\/p>\n Catholics would say that this refers to what we call the<\/span> \u201cevangelical counsels.\u201d<\/a> Jesus is not making this scenario mandatory for all<\/strong> followers<\/em>. He simply cites the fact<\/em>\u00a0regarding certain highly devoted Christians: \u201cthere is no one who has<\/span>\u00a0left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake.\u201d Parallel verse Luke 18:29 phrases it as \u201cthere is no man who has left\u201d while the corresponding Matthew 19:29 reads \u201cevery one who has left\u201d. This is the language of voluntary heroic renunciation, not universal requirement. It\u2019s a vast difference. And it demolishes Dr. Madison\u2019s present insinuation.<\/span><\/p>\n And that puts the lie to the derogatory references to Christianity as a \u201ccult\u201d repeatedly made by Dr. Madison in his podcasts. If the intention of either a real Jesus or the supposed evangelist-\u201cpropagandists\u201d for an imaginary \u201cJesus\u201d was to require this extreme sacrificial renunciation of everyone<\/em>, then the text would have plainly stated<\/em> and required that. What would have prevented<\/em> a bunch of lying deceivers from doing that?<\/span><\/p>\n But it doesn\u2019t, and one should note also that Jesus said this in direct response to his leading disciple, Peter, having said, \u201cLo, we have left everything and followed you.\u201d He<\/em> didn\u2019t completely forsake his entire family, because Jesus healed his mother-in-law (Matthew 8:14-15). To hear Dr. Madison tell it, Jesus should<\/em> have said, \u201cwhy do you mention and bring Me to your sick mother-in-law? Did I not tell you to hate<\/em> your families and utterly forget about them [see my first reply<\/a>], in order to follow Me<\/em>?\u201d But He didn\u2019t do<\/em> that, did He? He healed her.<\/span><\/p>\n And this is consistent with other passages having to do with the evangelical counsels (see<\/span> a great explanation<\/a> in the Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>). For example, Jesus said:<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 19:9-12<\/strong>\u00a0And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.\u201d\u00a0[10]\u00a0The disciples said to him, \u201cIf such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.\u201d\u00a0[11] But he said to them, \u201cNot all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.\u00a0[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. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Apostle Paul teaches the same thing: marriage is the usual norm, but in some cases, it is good to sacrifice good and holy marriage for the sake of Christian service:<\/span><\/p>\n Marriage<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:2\u00a0<\/strong>But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:9<\/strong>\u00a0But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:28<\/strong>\u00a0But if you marry, you do not sin, . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:36\u00a0<\/strong>If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry \u2014 it is no sin.<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:38<\/strong>\u00a0So that he who marries his betrothed does well; . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 9:5<\/strong>\u00a0Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles . . . ?<\/span><\/p>\n Voluntary and Heroic Celibacy<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:7-8\u00a0<\/strong>I wish that all were as I myself am [single \/ celibate]. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. [8]\u00a0To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:32, 35<\/strong>\u00a0I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; . . . [35]\u00a0I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:38<\/strong>\u00a0. . . he who refrains from marriage will do better.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 9:15<\/strong> . . . I have made no use of any of these rights . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Freedom to Follow One\u2019s Own Life Choices and Callings<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:17<\/strong>\u00a0Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is the furthest thing from mandatory requirements, forcing every Christian to give up the pleasures of family and married life. To find that, one must look to the ancient Gnostics, who taught that sex was literally evil. That has never been mainstream Christian (and especially not Catholic) teaching<\/a>. One could note fringe sects like the Shakers<\/a>, who required<\/em><\/strong> celibacy of all members. Of course, that was a view destined to render them extinct, as they pretty much are today. At its height in the mid-19th century, it only had 6,000 adherents. Today there is exactly one<\/em> remaining community<\/a> in Maine. It has two members.<\/span><\/p>\n\n