![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/08\/DisciplesWheatSabbath.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 this installment: \u201cA Charming Bible Story\u2026 and Its Bad Theology: another installment of the fantasy novel\u201d<\/a> (3-23-18).<\/span> The religious bureaucrats who heard this were shocked: \u201cNow some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, \u201cWhy does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?\u201d But Jesus would have none of it:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWhy do you raise such questions in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, \u2018Your sins are forgiven,\u2019 or to say, \u2018Stand up and take your mat and walk\u2019? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins\u201d\u2014he said to the paralytic\u2014 \u2018I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home.\u2019\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Have you been paying attention? If this were anybody else, we would say, \u201cSuch a blowhard\u201d\u2014claiming to heal someone to prove he had authority to forgive sins. But that\u2019s 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\u2019re charmed by the image of a paralytic being lowered through the roof to reach Jesus, we shouldn\u2019t suspend critical thinking, even though this is a beloved Bible story (well,\u00a0especially<\/i>\u00a0because it is). It would be good to know where this story came from.\u00a0Those who believe Mark reports \u201ctrue stories\u201d\u2014i.e., that the gospels are history\u2014never seem to wonder what Mark\u2019s sources were.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n To the latter question: presumably from the robust oral tradition of early Christianity: energized by abundant eyewitness testimony. I showed in<\/span> my previous installment<\/a> that the tidbit about a sick man being lowered through the roof is<\/span> supported by archaeology<\/a>. This was after Dr. Madison ludicrously exclaimed that there was<\/span> \u201cno way\u2014none at all\u2014to determine if there is\u00a0any history at all\u00a0in his [Mark\u2019s] narratives.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n Here\u2019s a little helpful tip to those of you interested in either apologetics or logic and debate in general: don\u2019t 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<\/em> 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\u2019s wild statement was refuted.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n As to sin being the reason the man was sick, Jesus refutes this notion elsewhere:<\/span><\/p>\n John 9:1-3<\/strong> (RSV)\u00a0As he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth.\u00a0[2] And his disciples asked him, \u201cRabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?\u201d\u00a0[3] Jesus answered, \u201cIt was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.<\/span><\/p>\n Luke 13:1-5<\/strong>\u00a0There were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.\u00a0[2] And he answered them, \u201cDo you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus?\u00a0[3] I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.\u00a0[4] Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Silo\u2019am fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem?\u00a0[5] I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This sort of worthless speculation and thinking was disposed of in the book of Job, many centuries earlier. God describes Job: \u201cthere is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil\u201d (1:8; cf. 2:3). Yet the entire book is about his extreme sufferings. Obviously, the teaching and \u201cmoral\u201d of that book is not that he suffered because<\/em> of his sins, but rather, in a state of extraordinary holiness<\/em>. I deal with these sorts of issues regarding healing, in-depth, in my paper,<\/span>\u00a0Is It Always God\u2019s Will to Heal?: Biblical Refutation of \u201cHyperfaith\u201d \/ \u201cName-It-Claim-It\u201d Teaching<\/a>.<\/p>\n One thing we do know is that the thinking reflected here\u2014let\u2019s face it, this is bad theology\u2014has 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\u2014on top of the pain of illness\u2014because they\u2019re sure that God is getting even with them? Double this anguish if people think that God is hurting others as well, to get even.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, this is false theology (I completely agree), but it\u2019s not<\/em> the theology of Jesus or the Bible. Dr. Madison states that<\/span> \u201cThe implication of this story is that physical affliction is a consequence of sin\u201d but this doesn\u2019t follow at all. Jesus didn\u2019t say that (and stated the contrary<\/em> at least twice, as just shown). He simply said to the man,\u00a0\u201cMy son, your sins are forgiven\u201d (Mk 2:5b). He never said<\/em> that his sins had caused his paralysis. In fact, the immediate context explains why He said that: because He \u201csaw their faith<\/em><\/strong>\u201d (2:5a; cf. Mt 9:2; Lk 5:20). <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In other words, saying he was forgiven was due to Jesus\u2019 knowledge and observation that he and his friends were faithful<\/em>: 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: \u201cyour faith has made you well\u201d (Mt 9:22; Mk 5:34; 10:52; Lk 8:48; 17:19; 18:42).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/p>\n If that had actually occurred<\/em>, I would agree, but of course it did not<\/em>, as just shown. It\u2019s simply another \u201cMadison myth\u201d: one of a great many that I will be exposing and refuting as I proceed through this long (and tedious) series.<\/span><\/p>\n 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 \u201csinners and tax collectors.\u201d When religious bureaucrats again raised their eyebrows, Jesus replied, \u201cThose who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.\u201d (v. 17) And, rightly so, this is one of the feel-good saying of Jesus.<\/span><\/p>\n I appreciate Dr. Madison\u2019s approbation of Jesus. What would we do without it?<\/span><\/p>\n But Mark keeps the message vague. At the outset of the chapter, with all those people crammed into Jesus\u2019 house, we read \u201c\u2026he was speaking the word to them.\u201d (v. 2) And now, in the Levi episode, Jesus says that be had come to \u201ccall\u201d on certain people. What was \u201cthe word,\u201d and what was Jesus calling people to? <\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cword\u201d or \u201cword of God\u201d is<\/span> equivalent in the New Testament<\/a> to the Gospel and also \u201ctrue apostolic tradition\u201d (including Old Testament inspired revelation; the Ten Commandments and other tenets of the moral law): the salvation message of God\u2019s free gift of grace, mercy, and salvation through acceptance of Christ\u2019s work on our behalf. Jesus clarifies much of this in chapter 7:<\/span><\/p>\n Mark 7:5-13<\/strong>\u00a0And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, \u201cWhy do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?\u201d\u00a0[6] And he said to them, \u201cWell did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, `This people honors me with their lips,\u00a0but their heart is far from me;\u00a0[7] in vain do they worship me,\u00a0teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.\u2019\u00a0[8] You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.\u201d\u00a0[9] And he said to them, \u201cYou have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!\u00a0\u00a0[10] For Moses said, `Honor your father and your mother\u2019; and, `He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die\u2019;\u00a0[11] but you say, `If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban\u2019 (that is, given to God) \u2014\u00a0[12] then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,\u00a0[13] thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do.\u201d (cf. Mk 4:14-20, 33: eight usages of \u201cthe word\u201d)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cThe gospel\u201d also appears in Mark eight times (1:1, 14-15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; 16:15). It\u2019s simply the summation of Jesus\u2019 message, seen throughout the book.<\/span><\/p>\n Read the gospel of Mark carefully\u2014and what\u2019s missing? There is little focus at all on ethical teaching. Jesus\u2019 primary message in Mark is the soon-to-arrive Kingdom of God\u2026which never arrived. <\/span><\/p>\n I thoroughly dealt with this charge about the kingdom never arriving in<\/span> the last installment<\/a>.<\/p>\n So, bottom line: \u201cthe word\u201d was probably not moral teaching; Jesus was calling people to commit to his delusion. <\/span><\/p>\n It was the gospel, etc., as just explained.<\/span><\/p>\n The Son of Man didn\u2019t descended<\/span> [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.<\/span><\/p>\n Sheer nonsense. These false charges have been dealt in<\/span> another one of my numerous refutations<\/a> of Dr. Madison.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\nIt\u2019s no surprise that Jesus was impressed, seeing a man being lowered through the ceiling: \u201cWhen Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, \u2018Son, your sins are forgiven.\u2019\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n