![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/08\/JesusWomanattheWell.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 eighth podcast of twelve is entitled: \u201cOn John 6:53-57, eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood are the key to eternal life\u201d<\/a>. Here is the passage:<\/span><\/p>\n John 6:53-57<\/span><\/strong> So Jesus said to them, \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;\u00a0[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.\u00a0[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.\u00a0[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.\u00a0[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s hard to come up with a better example of magical thinking. How in the world could eating flesh and blood, even if it belonged to a God, bestow eternal life? . . . These verses in John\u2019s Gospel are grotesque magic . . . eating a God to live forever is not real world thinking. It\u2019s magical thinking. It\u2019s bad religion; it\u2019s bad theology. . . . What an embarrassment that this text ended up in the New Testament.<\/span><\/p>\n Dr. Madison makes two major points about this text. First he argues that it echoes elements in other mystery religions before or during the time of Jesus; therefore, it is immediately suspect<\/em>, and was simply yet another deceitful technique used by cult propagandists Mark, Luke, and now John (or whoever he thinks put the Gospel that bears his name together), to put onto the lips of Jesus. He sees this as a disproof of the claim that Jesus even said what He did in John 6.<\/span><\/p>\n But it\u2019s by no means certain that when an idea has some aspects within it that were previously present elsewhere, that in and of itself, it disproves<\/em> the later idea. Why would anyone think<\/em> that? Yet this is common playbook \/ talking-points of both atheists and dissident theological liberals, when approaching historic Christianity and the Bible. Let me provide three analogies or word-pictures to reveal the blatant fallacy involved here:<\/span><\/p>\n 1) Modern astronomy and the theory of gravity both contain ideas which were present in the prior field of astrology; namely: distant bodies have an influence on the earth. Does it follow that, therefore, gravitation is untrue, simply because of this fact? No, of course not. Astrology had hit upon some truths, while also espousing many falsehoods. And in fact, Isaac Newton was neck-deep in the antiquated pseudo-science of alchemy and other occultic beliefs<\/a>, at the same time he did legitimate, ground-breaking science; and early astronomers like Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler, were<\/span> equally enthralled with astrology<\/a>, even while they made their momentous contributions to modern astronomy and physics. By the way,<\/span> St. Thomas Aquinas<\/a> 300-400 years earlier, and<\/span> St. Augustine<\/a> 1100-1200 years earlier, both rejected<\/em> astrology. Historical truth is much more interesting than revisionist historical fiction.<\/span><\/p>\n 2) It\u2019s often noted that there is a Deluge account in the Epic of Gilgamesh; therefore, this casts doubt on the story of Noah\u2019s Flood. But why would<\/em> it? Is it not more<\/em> plausible to assert that if in fact (for the sake of argument) such a major Flood had occurred, that other cultures besides Hebrew culture would more likely know about it, rather than not? Say for the sake of argument that the Bible had mentioned Halley\u2019s Comet. We now know that it passes by the earth every 76 years. No doubt many cultures have some written record of observing it. But if the Bible had happened to mention it, it would immediately be suspect because non-Hebrews also<\/em> wrote about it? Clearly not.<\/span><\/p>\n 3) Several cultures for centuries used mold in order to help people heal. Later it was discovered that the antibiotic penicillin was derived from mold. Is it therefore to be rejected as a result? Nope. This is shoddy reasoning. The Wikipedia article. \u201cHistory of penicillin\u201d<\/a> noted:<\/span><\/p>\n Many ancient cultures, including those in\u00a0Egypt,\u00a0Greece, and\u00a0India, independently discovered the useful properties of fungi and plants in treating\u00a0infection.<\/sup>\u00a0These treatments often worked because many organisms, including many species of\u00a0mold, naturally produce\u00a0antibiotic\u00a0substances. However, ancient practitioners could not precisely identify or isolate the active components in these organisms.<\/span><\/p>\n A similar argument can be made regarding<\/span> aspirin<\/a>. The Wikipedia article notes: \u201cA\u00a0precursor\u00a0to aspirin found in leaves from the\u00a0willow tree<\/a>\u00a0has been used for its health effects for at least 2,400 years.\u201d My own family has taken white willow bark for many years to treat pain.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In fact, Catholic apologist G. K. Chesterton, in his masterpiece,<\/span> The Everlasting Man<\/em><\/a>, argued that it is precisely to be expected<\/em>, and is an argument in favor<\/em> of Christianity, that there are many precursors to it: especially in the paganism that flourished in the previous 500 years or so. Anglican apologist C. S. Lewis, in his book,<\/span> The Abolition of Man<\/a><\/em>, has a section at the end (\u201cIllustrations of the Tao\u201d) in which he shows (and rejoices in) many similarities of world religions. <\/span><\/p>\n Young Lewis (very much like myself in my teen years) was enthralled with Norse mythology and Wagner\u2019s operas, etc., and was an atheist. He became a theist after a discussion with J. R. R. Tolkien, in which the latter noted that \u201cChristianity was a true myth.\u201d It had never occurred to Lewis that there could be such a thing as a myth that actually happened<\/em>. I have written about supposed \u201cpagan elements\u201d in Catholicism: which is a charge that anti-Catholic Protestants often make. It\u2019s fascinating to now see an atheist former Methodist minister use the same fallacious tactic:<\/span><\/p>\n Sacraments\u00a0& the Moral Responsibility of Their Recipients\u00a0<\/a>[8-26-06]<\/p>\n Are Relics & Sacraments Mere Magical Charms?<\/a>\u00a0[2007]<\/p>\n Dialogue on Sacramentalism, Holy Objects, and Relics<\/a>\u00a0[2-26-09]<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Bible on Physical Objects as Aids in Worship<\/a>\u00a0[4-7-09]<\/p>\n Sacraments: Bible & Church Fathers (vs. Calvin #34)<\/a>\u00a0[9-25-09]<\/p>\n The Biblical Understanding of Holy Places and Things<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 4-11-17]<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Biblical Evidence for Sacramentalism<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 8-29-17]<\/p>\n Obviously, Dr. Madison is not likely at all to be persuaded of a full Catholic eucharistic theology (or any theology at all). He\u2019s a hostile apostate. But I think perhaps he could be made to see at least (and many others can grasp) that it is not mere \u201cgrotesque magic.\u201d He asks,<\/span> \u201cHow in the world could eating flesh and blood, even if it belonged to a God, bestow eternal life?\u201d Well, it can because an omnipotent God decreed<\/em> it to be so, just as the Bible also teaches regeneration and salvation by means of water baptism<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Jesus makes a similar parallel with the woman at the well:<\/span><\/p>\nIs Catholicism Half-Pagan?<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\nIs Catholicism Half-Pagan, & a Blend of Gospel & Lies?<\/a><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThe second argument Dr. Madison makes (if we can even call it that), is that this eucharistic discourse is merely a species of \u201cmagic\u201d (and of a grotesque sort at that). What he calls \u201cmagic\u201d (and ironically again, this is an old talking-point of anti-Catholic Protestant fundamentalism as well) is simply sacramentalism<\/em>. Briefly defined, the word means; \u201cuse of matter to convey grace.\u201d <\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI don\u2019t intend to write a mini-treatise on sacramentalism in this reply. Readers may consult my articles for that purpose (just as they can read about the exegesis of John 6 and eucharistic theology on<\/span> that<\/em> web page of mine<\/a>:\u00a0including extensive exegetical arguments in favor of the literal interpretation). Suffice it to say that it is a very common theme or motif in the Bible:<\/span><\/div>\n*
\nHeartfelt Sacramentalism (Not Mere Charms)<\/a>\u00a0[1996]Why do Catholics Believe that Sacraments are Necessary?<\/a>\u00a0[2002]\n<\/div>\nIf one thinks that it is weird to eat Jesus\u2019 body (even in the \u201ceucharistic manner\u201d that we believe in, as opposed to literal cannibalism), then maybe an analogy would help. Jesus made it Himself in the passage under consideration. First He stated:<\/span><\/div>\n\n
John 6:31<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cOur fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, \u2018He gave them bread from heaven to eat.\u2019 \u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nHere Jesus starts to make the analogy between food for physical nutrition and \u201cspecial food\u201d for spiritual nourishment. He had just miraculously fed the five thousand in the passage preceding this discourse. This is a common technique in the Bible. Likewise, a parallel is made in 1 Peter 3:20-21 between Noah\u2019s Ark saving him and his family from drowning; preserving their physical lives, and being saved spiritually through water of baptism.\u00a0<\/span>Then Jesus started saying that He was the bread of life<\/em>:<\/span><\/div>\n\n
John 6:35<\/strong> . . .\u00a0\u201cI am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nJohn 6:48-51<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cI am the bread of life.\u00a0[49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.\u00a0[50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.\u00a0[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever . . .\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nThen He made it clear that He was not merely speaking metaphorically, but literally<\/em> about His real, substantial, bodily presence in the Holy Eucharist:<\/span><\/div>\n\n
John 6:51b-52<\/strong>\u00a0 \u201c. . .\u00a0the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.\u201d [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, \u201cHow can this man give us his flesh to eat?\u201d [followed by the text that Dr. Madison cites]<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nThen Jesus ties it all together, to make sure that no one misses the analogy:<\/span><\/div>\n\n
John 6:58<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cThis is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n