![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/08\/JesusMary.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: \u201cHow Come Jesus Didn\u2019t Know Better?: Jesus and the demons\u201d<\/a> (4-20-18).<\/span><\/p>\n [I pass over Dr. Madison\u2019s rant against angels, demons, Satan, and benevolent dead saints. He gives no arguments and merely assumes<\/em> that such beings are self-evidently false and superstitious<\/span> (\u201cMark chapter 3 is a major embarrassment to devout Christians who have learned to think like citizens of the 21st Century,\u201d<\/span> etc. ad nauseam<\/em>); hence, nothing in this section to refute or interact with. I deal with arguments<\/em>, not bald self-assumed infallible and invulnerable ravings<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n Perhaps the most regrettable part of this pronouncement comes at the end: You\u2019re not allowed to insult one of the big shots in the spirit world:<\/span><\/p>\n \u2022 \u201cTruly, 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\u201d\u2014for they had said, \u2018He has an unclean spirit.\u2019\u201d (vv. 28-30)<\/span><\/p>\n We have to assume that the Christians who \u2018love their Jesus\u2019 don\u2019t pay much attention to this text\u2014or are as heavily into magical thinking as the guy who wrote it.\u00a0Everything else<\/b><\/i>\u00a0can be forgiven, but not blaspheming the holy spirit? Of course this makes no sense whatever from the standpoint of\u00a0rational ethics<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s because this blasphemy is rejection of God Himself (Whom the Holy Spirit and Jesus are). It\u2019s calling evil good. Hence, it can\u2019t and won\u2019t 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 \u201cscribes\u201d charged that He was \u201cpossessed by Be-el\u2019zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons\u201d (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):<\/span><\/p>\n Mark 3:23-26<\/strong> . . . \u201cHow can Satan cast out Satan?\u00a0[24] If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.\u00a0[25] And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.\u00a0[26] And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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<\/em> 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 \u201ceternal sin\u201d in hell). Jesus adds in the parallel account in Matthew:<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 12:28<\/strong>\u00a0But 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: \u201c. . .\u00a0by the finger of God . . .\u201d)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n How in the world this is<\/span> \u201cregrettable\u201d and how it supposedly<\/span> \u201cmakes no sense whatever from the standpoint of\u00a0rational ethics<\/i>\u201d is, I\u2019m 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 \u201cevil man who serves Satan\u201d: as if what he did was a bad<\/em> thing, only deserving of scorn and derision. That\u2019s a very wicked lie; and it would richly deserve precisely the rebuke that Jesus gave an even more<\/em> outrageous and vicious lie. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In effect, Jesus was expressing the thought that, \u201cif you call even the benevolent God<\/em> 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.\u201d And that is merciful<\/em>\u00a0and perfectly<\/em> rational and ethical. He\u2019s telling them that they are in extreme spiritual danger<\/em>, just as any caring person would warn another about impending physical danger<\/em>, if it is potentially present (say, for example, walking out into a powerful hurricane). They were playing with fire. If they didn\u2019t know that, then they did after Jesus informed them.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 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\u2019t 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: \u201cFor the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many\u201d), but how was the bad end plotted?<\/span><\/p>\n 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: \u201cThe Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n This simple statement reflects the\u00a0omniscient perspective\u00a0<\/i>that novelists enjoy; they can tell the reader what characters are thinking\u2014or 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\u2014and after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE\u2014it\u2019s 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?<\/span><\/p>\n It may have been speculative in some sense, I suppose, but if so, it was a quite plausible<\/em> speculation, since Jesus\u2019 enemies gave many hints that they hated and despised Him: up to and including violent threats and infiltration of Jesus\u2019 own twelve disciples, to get someone willing to betray Him (and the incident I just dealt with, where they accused Him of being \u201cpossessed by Be-el\u2019zebul.\u201d 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<\/em>. The fact is that Jesus was tried by the Jewish Sanhedrin, in an illegal kangaroo court, complete with absurdly conflicting \u201cwitnesses\u201d:<\/span><\/p>\n Mark 14:55-59<\/strong>\u00a0Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none.\u00a0[56] For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree.\u00a0[57] And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying,\u00a0[58] \u201cWe 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.'\u201d\u00a0[59] Yet not even so did their testimony agree.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n We know at least part of these proceedings were public in nature (such as the incident with the crowd yelling for Jesus\u2019 crucifixion), and so the hatred of Jesus could have been observed. Moreover, there were many other public and observable hints of same:<\/span><\/p>\n John 10:31-33\u00a0<\/strong>The Jews took up stones again to stone him.\u00a0[32] Jesus answered them, \u201cI have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?\u201d\u00a0[33] The Jews answered him, \u201cIt is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n That was a public incident, and that is how the Gospel writers could know \u2014 fairly certainly \u2014 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:<\/span><\/p>\n John 5:18\u00a0<\/strong>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><\/blockquote>\n Jesus was threatened with stoning or other bodily harm by the scribes and Pharisees other times as well:<\/span><\/p>\n John 8:59\u00a0<\/strong>So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.<\/span><\/p>\n John 11:8\u00a0<\/strong>The disciples said to him, \u201cRabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Luke 4:28-30\u00a0<\/strong>When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath.\u00a0[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.\u00a0[30] But passing through the midst of them he went away.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n If an historian (whether professional or \u201camateur\u201d) made the statement, \u201cJohn Wilkes Booth hated Abraham Lincoln and sought to destroy him\u201d or \u201cLee Harvey Oswald hated John F. Kennedy and sought to destroy him\u201d 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\u2019s speculation.<\/span><\/p>\n Now, as for the particular assertion of a pharisaical plot with the Herodians (which is Dr. Madison\u2019s 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 \u201cchief priests and the scribes\u201d along with Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate all in league against Jesus:<\/span><\/p>\n Luke 23:10-12\u00a0<\/strong>The chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently accusing him.\u00a0[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.\u00a0[12] And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before this they had been at enmity with each other.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Some good Pharisees were aware of Herod\u2019s plotting and warned Jesus:<\/span><\/p>\n Luke 13:31-33<\/strong>\u00a0At that very hour some Pharisees came, and said to him, \u201cGet away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.\u201d\u00a0[32] And he said to them, \u201cGo and tell that fox, `Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course.\u00a0 [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.'\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is more than enough external verification for Mark to surmise as he did (even considered separately from the question of biblical inspiration).<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cOh, this tidbit is based on eyewitness accounts and\/or reliable oral tradition.\u201d So say those who want Mark to be history. But that is conjecture, wishful thinking\u2014actually it is a \u2018faith\u2019 statement\u2014for 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.<\/span><\/p>\n I just showed how it is altogether<\/em> plausible and hardly a stretch at all<\/em> to so conclude. But (to play his game for a moment) Dr. Madison, in his manifest sagacity and wisdom, doesn\u2019t want<\/em> this to be true, and engages in mere\u00a0conjecture and wishful thinking. As the old proverb goes, \u201ca man convinced against his will retains his original belief still.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Yet More Embarrassment <\/span><\/p>\n 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? <\/span><\/p>\n \u2022 \u201c\u2026they said to him, \u2018Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you.\u2019 And he replied, \u2018Who are my mother and my brothers?\u2019 And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, \u2018Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.\u2019\u201d (vv. 32-35) <\/span><\/p>\n On the most generous interpretation, Jesus is here expanding his understanding of family\u2014but 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): <\/span><\/p>\n \u2022 \u201cThen 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, \u2018He is beside himself.\u2019\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n James Spencer Northcote<\/a> provides a great answer to this line of reasoning:<\/span><\/p>\n 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, \u201cWho 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.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n 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 \u201cwho sat about Him;\u201d 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.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Even Dr. Madison almost stumbled into the truth:<\/span> \u201cOn the most generous interpretation, Jesus is here expanding his understanding of family.\u201d 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, \u201cI have\u00a0<\/b>called you friends\u201d (Jn 15:15).\u00a0<\/b>It doesn\u2019t follow<\/em> that this is \u201ca rebuff of this kin\u201d<\/span> (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 \u201cthe will of God.\u201d Thus, Jesus habitually used \u201cbrethren\u201d to describe those who were not His immediate family:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 5:47\u00a0<\/strong>And if you salute only your\u00a0<\/b>brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 23:8<\/strong>\u00a0But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all\u00a0<\/b>brethren.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 25:40\u00a0<\/strong>And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my\u00a0<\/b>brethren, you did it to me.\u2019<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 28:10\u00a0<\/strong>Then Jesus said to them, \u201cDo not be afraid; go and tell my\u00a0<\/b>brethren\u00a0to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Luke 22:32 \u201c<\/strong>but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your\u00a0<\/b>brethren.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n John 20:17<\/strong>\u00a0Jesus said to her, \u201cDo not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my\u00a0<\/b>brethren\u00a0and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n We see that \u201cbrethren\u201d is used 191 times<\/a> in the New Testament, mostly in this sense. So is \u201cbrother\u201d<\/a> (116 times in the New Testament). \u201cSister\u201d is also used in the epistles, referring to fellow Christians who are female: Romans 16:1<\/strong>\u00a0I commend to you our\u00a0<\/b>sister\u00a0Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cen\u2019chre-ae,<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:15<\/strong>\u00a0But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or\u00a0<\/b>sister\u00a0is not bound.<\/span><\/p>\n Philemon 1:2<\/strong>\u00a0and Ap\u2019phia our\u00a0<\/b>sister\u00a0and Archip\u2019pus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house:<\/span><\/p>\n James 2:15<\/strong>\u00a0If a brother or\u00a0<\/b>sister\u00a0is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Arguably, all of this might be thought to have started in the words of Jesus here under consideration. It\u2019s not a rebuff of His mother and father and half-brothers and\/or cousins (also called \u201cbrothers\u201d in the New Testament; Jesus was an only Son); it\u2019s simply the beginning of the Body of Christ, and the Christian Church being regarded as one large, extended family.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Lastly, Jesus refers to His own mother as the mother of John, when He asked His disciple to watch over her after Jesus\u2019 death:<\/span><\/p>\n John 19:26-27\u00a0<\/strong>When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, \u201cWoman, behold, your son!\u201d\u00a0[27] Then he said to the disciple, \u201cBehold, your mother!\u201d And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n And of course, we have the long tradition of calling priests<\/em> (in Catholicism and Orthodoxy) \u201cfather\u201d: the biblical basis for which, I have written about<\/a>. And female leaders of nuns and religious are called \u201cMother\u201d; for example, Mother Teresa; now St. Teresa of Calcutta, or Mother Angelica, who founded EWTN. Monks are called \u201cBrother\u201d and nuns, \u201cSister,\u201d etc.<\/span><\/p>\n 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<\/em> put family first. This \u2018rebuffing\u2019 text in Mark thus aligns well with the infamous verses, Luke 14:26-27: <\/span><\/p>\n \u2022 \u201cIf 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.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n 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, \u201cWell, Jesus couldn\u2019t have meant that,\u201d . . . It means exactly what it seems to mean.<\/span><\/p>\n Not at all, as I showed in a past<\/span> refutation of the same argument<\/a> from Dr. Madison, and<\/span> also a related one<\/a>, having to do with Jesus\u2019 falsely alleged hostility to families.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n