![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/08\/Jesus52.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
This is an installment of my replies to a series of articles on Mark<\/a>\u00a0by Dr. David Madison<\/strong>: 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,<\/span> \u201cNot-Your-Pastor\u2019s Tour of Mark\u2019s Gospel: The falsification of Christianity made easy\u201d<\/a> (Debunking Christianity<\/em>, 7-17-19). His words will be in\u00a0<\/span>blue<\/span>\u00a0below.<\/span><\/p>\n Dr. Madison has utterly ignored<\/em> my twelve refutations<\/a> of his<\/span> \u201cdirty dozen\u201d podcasts against Jesus<\/a>, and I fully expect that stony silence to continue. If he wants to be repeatedly critiqued and make no response, that\u2019s his choice (which would challenge Bob Seidensticker<\/a> as the most intellectually cowardly atheist I know). I will continue on, whatever he decides to do (no skin off my back).<\/span><\/p>\n Dr. Madison believes we are not at all\u00a0sure<\/em>\u00a0whether Jesus in fact said\u00a0anything<\/em>\u00a0recorded in the Gospels. The atheist always has a convenient \u201cout\u201d (when refuted in argument about some biblical text) that Jesus never said it\u00a0anyway<\/em>\u00a0and that the text in question was simply made up and added later by unscrupulous and \u201ccultish\u201d Christian propagandists. <\/span><\/p>\n I always refuse to play this silly and ultimately intellectually dishonest game, because there is no way to \u201cwin\u201d with such a stacked, subjective deck. I start with the assumption (based on many historical evidences<\/a>) that the manuscripts we have are quite sufficient for us to know what is in<\/em> the Bible (believe<\/em> it or not<\/em>).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Dr. Madison himself \u2014 in<\/span> his anti-Jesus project<\/a>\u00a0noted above, granted my outlook, strictly in terms of\u00a0practical<\/em>\u00a0\u201cx vs. y\u201d debate purposes:<\/span>\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<\/span>\u00a0And in the combox:<\/span>\u00a0\u201cSo, we can go along with their insistence that he did exist. We\u2019ll play on their field, i.e., the gospels.\u201d Excellent! Otherwise, there would be no possible discussion at all.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Dr. Madison called his Introduction to Mark,<\/span> \u201cGetting the Gospels Off on the Wrong Foot: The strange Jesus in Mark\u2019s story\u201d<\/a> (1-19-18).<\/span><\/p>\n The Christian church has managed to pull off one of the biggest con jobs in history.<\/span><\/p>\n One readily perceives that Dr. Madison is perhaps not the most objective and fair observer of the Christianity that he forsook, doesn\u2019t<\/em> one? Sun Tzu, a contemporary of the prophet Jeremiah, wrote in The Art of War<\/em>\u00a0in the 6th century BC: \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The laity trusted their priests that Christ the Redeemer was all that mattered; hence the down-and-dirty details in the gospels went unnoticed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Ignorance is always at a premium in any large social \/ religious [or any type of] group \u2014 no argument there. Take a look at, for example, any combox at the Debunking Christianity<\/em> 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\u2019re not as stupid and clueless as Dr. Madison would like his readers to believe. And he\u2019s not nearly as \u201csmart\u201d: as I continue to repeatedly demonstrate, if I do say so: insofar as he thinks<\/em> he has made mincemeat of the Bible.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n If you accept the Jesus of Mark\u2019s gospel, you are well on the way to full-throttle crazy religion.<\/span><\/p>\n Well, we\u2019ll see<\/em> about that<\/em>, won\u2019t 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\u2019ve known a million of them these past 42 years).<\/span><\/p>\n The other gospel writers, in their spinning of Jesus fiction, carried on the tradition of invention, . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n As I stated in the generic introduction above, I will not entertain arbitrary and foolish silliness of this sort (just to make that<\/em> crystal clear). I\u2019m here to defend the text as we have it and to show that Dr. Madison\u2019s assertions are logically fallacious or factually incorrect.<\/span><\/p>\n Gospel experts, of the apologetic Christian variety, won\u2019t hear any of this. . . . they devote their careers to smoothing out rough edges and erasing Jesus blemishes.<\/span><\/p>\n And Dr. Madison devotes his Bible-bashing \u201ccareer\u201d (or prevalent pastime?) to running from every critique of his arguments; or at least that\u2019s how it\u2019s always been with me<\/em>, thus far, and I am a<\/span> professional Christian \/ Catholic apologist<\/a>, after all. I make arguments that I find plausible and defensible (or else I wouldn\u2019t bother making them), and I can hardly change my mind if there is no counter-reply at all.<\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/p>\n (1) Jesus was an exorcist.\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n 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\u2014and demons, apparently.<\/span><\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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\u2019t follow every rabbit trail that he brings up, anyway, or I wouldn\u2019t have enough time in my entire life to reply to his hostile contentions.<\/span><\/p>\n (2) Jesus tried to fool people by teaching in parables.\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n Of course, this doesn\u2019t make sense. What was Mark thinking? But here it is, Mark 4:10-12, which includes a quotation from Isaiah 6:9-10:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWhen he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, \u2018To 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.\u2019\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n I thoroughly disposed of this objection in my paper,<\/span> \u201cMadison vs. Jesus #7: God Prohibits Some Folks\u2019 Repentance?\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n It\u2019s odd because\u2014ooops\u2014in John\u2019s gospel, Jesus doesn\u2019t teach in parables.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s correct. But Jesus does<\/em> 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:<\/span><\/p>\n John 2:19-21<\/strong>\u00a0(RSV) Jesus answered them, \u201cDestroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.\u201d\u00a0[20] The Jews then said, \u201cIt has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?\u201d\u00a0[21] But he spoke of the temple of his body.<\/span><\/p>\n John 3:8<\/strong>\u00a0The 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.<\/span><\/p>\n John 4:13-14<\/strong>\u00a0Jesus said to her, \u201cEvery one who drinks of this water will thirst again,\u00a0[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.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n John 6:35<\/strong>\u00a0Jesus said to them, \u201cI am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.<\/span><\/p>\n John 10:11<\/strong> 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 \u201cthe door\u201d three times)<\/span><\/p>\n John 11:12-14<\/strong>\u00a0But if any one walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him.\u201d\u00a0[11] Thus he spoke, and then he said to them, \u201cOur friend Laz\u2019arus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep.\u201d\u00a0[12] The disciples said to him, \u201cLord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.\u201d\u00a0[13] Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep.\u00a0[14] Then Jesus told them plainly, \u201cLaz\u2019arus is dead;\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n (3) Jesus believed in human sacrifice to get right with God.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n 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? <\/span><\/p>\n 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<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not that animal blood has intrinsic magical or curative properties. It\u2019s simply the symbolism that God ordained: to show human beings the seriousness of sin. The writer of Hebrews expressly denied<\/em> that the old covenant system of animal sacrifice actually took away sins:<\/span><\/p>\n Hebrews 10:1-4, 11<\/strong>\u00a0For 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.\u00a0[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.\u00a0[3] But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year.\u00a0[4]<\/span> For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. . . . [11]\u00a0And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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\u2019s commands were that:<\/span><\/p>\n Proverbs 15:8<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong>The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD<\/span>,\u00a0but the prayer of the upright is his delight.<\/span><\/p>\n Amos 5:12, 14, 21-24<\/strong>\u00a0For I know how many are your transgressions, and how great are your sins \u2014 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]<\/span> Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them<\/span>, 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.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jesus reflected these thoughts in the New Testament:<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 9:13<\/strong> \u201cGo and learn what this means, \u2018I desire mercy, and not sacrifice\u2019. . . .\u201d (cf. 12:7)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n He was citing the Hebrew Bible:<\/span><\/p>\n Hosea 6:6<\/strong>\u00a0For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,\u00a0the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, if and when the Israelites were rebellious against God and His laws and wicked, their sacrifices (far from being \u201cmagic\u201d) 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\u2019 redemption accomplished that. Hence, Paul writes:<\/span><\/p>\n Galatians 2:16\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0yet who know that a man is not justified by\u00a0<\/b>works of the law\u00a0but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by\u00a0works of the law, because by\u00a0works of the law\u00a0shall no one be justified.<\/span><\/p>\n Galatians 3:10-12, 19, 21-26<\/strong>\u00a0For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, \u201cCursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.\u201d\u00a0[11] Now it is evident that<\/span> no man is justified before God by the law<\/span>; for \u201cHe who through faith is righteous shall live\u201d;\u00a0[12] but the law does not rest on faith, for \u201cHe who does them shall live by them.\u201d . . . [19]\u00a0Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, . . .\u00a0[21] Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not; for<\/span> if a law had been given which could make alive<\/span>, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.\u00a0[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.\u00a0[23] Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed.\u00a0[24] So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith.\u00a0[25] But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian;\u00a0[26] for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Mark would have us believe that a Galilean peasant got it into his head that he was selected for this mission (10:45): \u201cFor the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n He didn\u2019t get \u201cit into his head\u201d: He always knew this, being God and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity from all eternity. Hence, He expressed in many ways,<\/span> in the Gospels, that He was God<\/a>.<\/p>\n How can Christians not notice that a human sacrifice to placate God is bad theology?<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s 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<\/em> things are barbaric.<\/span><\/p>\n But this was an act by God (Jesus) to voluntarily<\/strong> suffer and die on our behalf<\/em> (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<\/strong><\/em> 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.<\/span><\/p>\n (4) Jesus preached that the Kingdom of God was immanent\u2014and he was wrong.\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n The present world order was about to be wiped out, indeed \u201cbefore this generation passes away\u201d\u2014and 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\u2019s get-even theology will be realized; the tone of Mark 13 is urgency, with the closing words \u201ckeep watch.\u201d 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\u00a0failed<\/i><\/b>\u00a0apocalyptic prophet.<\/span><\/p>\n I already demolished this in my earlier reply:<\/span> \u201cDr. David Madison vs. Jesus #3: Nature & Time of 2nd Coming.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n (5) Jesus the great moral teacher fails to show up.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n [. . .]<\/span><\/p>\n Moreover, there are comments in this gospel for which Jesus deserves\u00a0demerits<\/i><\/b>; 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\u2014and expects a man to leave his parents to get married. But that does\u00a0not<\/i><\/b>\u00a0mean that God has been matchmaker for every couple that ever was: \u201cTherefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.\u201d In fact, this is a mindless\u00a0non sequitur<\/i>\u2014and has caused so much misery.<\/span><\/p>\n I dealt with this in my paper,<\/span>\u00a0Madison vs. Jesus #4: Jesus Causes a Bad Marriage?<\/a><\/p>\n Jesus gets a very poor grade as well for this bit of cult fanaticism, 10:29-30: \u201cTruly 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\u2014houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions\u2014and in the age to come eternal life.\u201d\u00a0You will be rewarded for leaving your family? You\u2019ll get a new set of relatives and new houses?<\/b>\u00a0How can Christians be comfortable with this?<\/span><\/p>\n This is covered in my paper,<\/span>\u00a0Madison vs. Jesus #5: Cultlike Forsaking of Family?<\/a><\/p>\n (6) [What] did Jesus mean with this list?<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n What more could you want? It\u2019s the resurrected Jesus who explains that \u201cthose who believe\u201d will be able to do these five things (Mark 16:16-18):<\/span><\/p>\n 1. Cast out demons (yes, we\u2019re back to demons)<\/span> 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\u2019t know where any of Mark\u2019s gospel came from;\u00a0maybe it\u2019s all fake news<\/i><\/b>. This list may not be from the mouth of Jesus, but whoever thought it up certainly had a goofy take on Christianity.<\/span><\/p>\n But, hey, here\u2019s the challenge for apologists who insist that the gospels are based on eyewitness accounts and highly reliable oral tradition. These six items I\u2019ve listed: Do you really want to argue that these reflect authentic Jesus information? <\/span><\/p>\n Yes.<\/span><\/p>\n Is this strange Jesus the one you want?<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not strange if rightly understood<\/em>. 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:<\/span>\u00a0Dr. David Madison vs. Jesus #2: Weird & Fictional Mark 16?<\/a>\u00a0He obviously recycled a lot of these whoppers in his more recent podcasts that I refuted. But (hate to break the news) simply repeating<\/em> a lousy argument doesn\u2019t make it any stronger.<\/span><\/p>\n Maybe, after all, there\u2019s a glimpse of history at Mark 3:21, where we find that Jesus\u2019s family wasn\u2019t too thrilled about his vocation. \u201cWhen his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, \u2018He has gone out of his mind.\u2019\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n That sounds about right to me.<\/span><\/p>\n 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\u2019 persecution and death, in his Apology<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n At his trial, Socrates is accused of two things: impiety (asebeia<\/em>) against\u00a0Athens\u2019s gods, by introducing new gods, and corruption of Athenian youth, by teaching them to question the status quo. He is accused of impiety because the Oracle at Delphi said there was no wiser man in\u00a0Athens\u00a0then Socrates, and Socrates knew he was not wise. After hearing that, he questioned every man he met to find a wiser man than he.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n The corruption charge, said Socrates in his defense, was because by questioning people in public, he embarrassed them, and they, in turn, accused him of corrupting the youth of Athens by the use of sophistry. (<\/span>\u201cWhat Was the Charge Against Socrates?,\u201d<\/a> N. S. Gill, ThoughtCo.<\/em>, 11-28-18)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n That sounds very familiar. Jesus\u2019 enemies (mostly the scribes and Pharisees) accused Him of blasphemy and impiety because He claimed to be God, and also the Messiah. This upset the apple cart (to put it extremely mildly), so\u00a0they sought to kill Him:<\/span><\/p>\n John 5:15-18<\/strong> The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him.\u00a0[16] And this was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this on the sabbath.\u00a0[17] But Jesus answered them, \u201cMy Father is working still, and I am working.\u201d\u00a0[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.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n2. Speak in new tongues<\/span>
\n3. Pick up snakes<\/span>
\n4. Drink any deadly thing<\/span>
\n5. Lay hands on people to heal them<\/span><\/p>\n