Month: May 2024

Book Plunge: The Toxic War On Masculinity Part 5

What happens when men embrace toxicity? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re going to have a short look tonight at this part. There comes a time when after awhile, people get so often told that they are such a way that they become such a way. This is what happened to men eventually. Want to keep labeling them as unfaithful and barbarians and everything else? It will not become a mark of shame. It will become a mark of pride.

And so it did. Men decided that this would be who they would be and let the women just deal with it. Unfortunately, the lie has gone on so long that now most of us believe it and we don’t even realize we believe it. Consider this one quote from Pearcey:

Sociologist David Popenoe, codirector of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, writes, “Men are not biologically attuned to being committed fathers. Left culturally unregulated, men’s sexual behaviour can be promiscuous, their paternity casual, their commitment to families weak.”

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (p. 169). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Many of you could be reading this and thinking, “Yes. No question about that one.” Pearcey has a different take:

Note the assumption that men are not created to be faithful husbands and fathers—a dangerous message that fosters male irresponsibility.

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (pp. 169-170). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

It’s so simple and yet it goes right through. Pearcey sees what many of us would take for granted and says that if we go this route then we are assuming men are a problem to begin with. Apparently, nothing is said about what women are created to be.

Within the past month or so, I posted on a story on the Babylon Bee Facebook page and had a feminist woman reply to me. It was on the topic of abortion and she was telling me if I wanted to eliminate abortion, I needed to deal with, and I will edit her language for the sake of some readers, but simply, men having an irresponsible release. It never occurred to this woman that it takes two to tango. She also said that if men do not control themselves, then women will have abortions. Yep. It’s all up to the men what the women do.

Thus, we live in a world where men are guilty of the crime of being men. You find some extremes where men form a manosphere and then manhood is often defined by how many women you sleep with. The women complain, but at the same time, they go right along. (Which means also the women have to be being just as promiscuous as the men, but there’s hardly anything said about controlling the female sex drive.)

Yet now what if we take this even further? What has this done to Christianity? Even in churches before the American Revolution it was noted that men were not nearly in attendance as much as women. What happens when masculinity is redefined?

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: The Toxic War On Masculinity Part 4

Is culture fair towards boys? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Sometimes I hear about problem students at school. Inevitably, they’re boys. These are boys that seem to always act up in class and parents can’t figure out what’s going on. Sometimes, I think I also know what the problem is.

They’re boys.

No. It’s not that being a boy is a problem, but it’s that the schooling system we have today is much more geared towards girls. Sit at a desk and be quiet and don’t move and do your work that way. Many boys would rather be active and they are gunning inside of themselves to be active. Also, if they don’t find themselves challenged, they will either make artificial challenges, like I did, or they will cause trouble, like I didn’t.

This started more and more when fathers went off to work and sons were left at home often to be raised by the mother. This isn’t to say that a mother can’t raise a son, (See this book for instance) but there is a challenge as a mother can’t pass on masculinity. That’s one reason many excellent single mothers I still would encourage to get male role models for their sons that they can personally interact alongside.

Pearcey says that the way boys were was shown in the novels of the day. Boys were more and more being scamps. Think of something like Huckleberry Finn. The good boys were boring and the bad boys were going off and having adventures.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with spirit and spunk. Boys are on average more physically active and aggressive than girls. Many of them love to pretend fight, to play competitive games, to be a hero. But being high-spirited is not the same as misbehaving. The bad-boy books taught boys that being good was boring and girly—that to be a “real” boy meant to break the rules and defy adult standards of behavior.

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (p. 144). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

In many cases, this led to an escape to the wilderness because home was where femininity reigned. Why did Thoreau go out to Walden Pond? To get away from femininity. What about the classic tale of Rip Van Winkle? Just go and look and see what he had to say about his wife!

Why were men going out west? Not just to find gold and riches, but to get away from centers of femininity. Real manhood was to be found out on the open range. One went out into nature to get in touch with one’s manhood. It sure wasn’t going to happen in civilization. Yet Pearcey says about this that:

Yet, instead of escaping into boy culture, a more biblical response would have been to recognize that Christianity does not strip away the virtues of boyhood—the natural drive many boys have to fight, to compete, to build forts, to win. Instead, it calls men to direct those masculine traits to fight evil, overcome sin, protect those they love, and strategize how to advance biblical truth in the world. Christianity does not suppress men’s thirst for risk and adventure but redirects it to eternal goals.

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (p. 151). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

This idea of escaping femininity and the noble savage even impacted the formation of the Boy Scouts.

Today few people remember that scouting was also originally framed as a means of liberating boys from the world of women. A 1914 article distributed by the Boy Scouts argued that, at a certain age, a boy “slips the apron-strings” and discovers “a world in which petticoats are scorned and an attempt at petticoat rule is resented.” As one historian explains, scouting was intended to be “a boy’s liberation movement, to free young males from women, especially from mothers.”

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (pp. 152-153). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

By the way, Pearcey doesn’t have anything against the Scouts. She says she was a cub scout leader for a year and loved it. What needs to be asked though is why was there a need to have an idea of a noble savage? What were boys not just running to, but running from?

Think about things like Dude Ranches as well. Men are needing to find masculinity and are not thinking they can find it at home. They think it is out there in the wild.

Well, what about Jesus? Many men don’t identify with Jesus who is often seen as weak. What about gentle Jesus meek and mild? As Pearcey says in response:

It’s true that Jesus described himself as meek: “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart” (Matthew 11:29 KJV). But in the first century, the meaning of the word “meek” (Greek: praus) was quite different from what it is today. A Greek military leader named Xenophon used the word to describe war horses that were well trained—strong and spirited yet highly disciplined. Socrates said a meek person was one who could argue his case without losing his temper. Plato used the word to describe a victorious general who was merciful to a conquered people. Aristotle referred to a meek person as someone concerned about justice but whose anger does not degrade into revenge or retaliation. The common theme in all these uses of the word is power under control—which certainly describes Jesus better than any saccharine Victorian image.

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (pp. 156-157). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Power under control is not what many of us think of when we think of Jesus as meek.

She ends this section with a battle cry hopefully men can get behind, as well as women.

We are called to engage in the battle for the advancement of the kingdom . . . employing all the natural and spiritual gifts with which we’ve been equipped to fight against hunger, poverty, and ignorance and to fight for truth, life, and justice . . . to redeem culture and transform nations.

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (p. 159). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

I will certainly take part in this battle and hope I already am.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Toxic War On Masculinity Part 3

Do men bear responsibility? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

What happens when you divorce the public and the private, the sacred and the secular? What happens when femininity and masculinity are no longer seen as complementing one another but are seen as competition? What happens when the individual becomes more important than the household?

There’s not much to say on this one tonight except when two groups start to form a divide, generally, they make it get deeper and deeper. Men who were seen in a negative light, well, they became a self-fulfilling prophecy. They started living that way and before too long, you had saloons. You had men spending extra money on alcohol. You saw that since the women were taking charge of the household, the men were starting to abdicate responsibility.

It’s a sad reality that we all will usually choose the path of least resistance and the path that requires the least work. Today, a woman will have sex with a man thinking that he will then marry her. In reality, he’ll usually see that and say “Okay. I guess I don’t need to go any further.” Why should he? He’s got what he wants and he doesn’t have to enter any further risk, such as getting married and losing half of his money and having to pay alimony for the rest of his life.

And the women in all of this? Well, they developed a sort of take-charge attitude in this. Many reform movements were beginning because women were of the mindset that things would be better if they were in charge. This is the beginning of feminism today and sadly, it is the beginning. As I said at the start, if you keep pushing people down a divide, that divide will grow worse and worse.

So then, you have the idea that we need to have reform. Where does that lead? Today, you can have a hashtag that says to Kill All Men.

Sometimes you need to go back to where you lost your way and find out what happened. One step Pearcey takes is to look at how Jesus treated women. Jesus would be with women in public and speaking to them. Jesus would include women in His teaching and have them listen to His teaching. Jesus even traveled with women and had women who were supporting Him.

Jesus had a tender heart towards women.

So far in all of this post today, we have discussed what happened between men and women. I have stated that men and women drove further apart. Instead of being allies and working together, they were becoming enemies and working against one another. However, marriages don’t normally have just a husband and a wife. They also have children. Some of those children are also the future men.

What happens to the young boys when the Dad is not only away from the son because of work, but away from the son because he is out drinking with his buddies?

That will wait until tomorrow.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: The Toxic War On Masculinity Part 2

Where did things go wrong? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we have a culture in America that prizes women, where men are told to treasure them. Men actually lead their families. Everyone works together and men are guardians of virtue leading the family in prayer and Bible study. That all sounds good. What changed?

Answer: Technology.

In the past, men would often work on their own turf and eventually one day, the Dad would call the son over and introduce him to the craft. The family would work together. When the Industrial Revolution came along, men got separated from that and they were more in a work environment than a home environment.

Pearcey tells us that the work environment was quite different and many of the traits we deem toxic today, started showing up, like the strong competitive win-at-all costs mentality and the desire to get ahead. I think to some extent, men have always been competitive, but now it was a dark side of competition.

Men had to do this because they had to provide for their families and they had to show that they could not be replaced. Pearcey tells us the criticisms Marx had of the working environment were common in his day. Man was becoming a machine to earn profit and it was not about the family business anymore.

In the past, there was the Protestant Ethic, whereby it wasn’t just ministerial work that was a calling of sorts, but so was secular work. The person who was making shoes could serve God just as much as the priest could. All people were to play a part in the Kingdom of God. The priest could travel the roads, but he certainly needed someone to build those roads!

This also led to a public and private divide. The private was the home and the public was the work. The public/work was that which could be verified, think science. The private/home was the subjective. Those familiar with the Schaeffer idea of the lower and upper story, which Pearcey definitely knows well and references, will be familiar with this. Because of this, morality did not control work like it did the home and men working in that environment were more influenced by it than they did influence it.

Not only that, but we needed to know how to get along in a workplace that was amoral. What if we made a set of dictums to follow artificially? We could call it, an, oh, I don’t know, social contract maybe? Yep. That’s where it began. It was even called social physics. How does a contract work as a system of ethics? Pearcey says:

What’s the difference between a contract and a covenant? Both are agreements, but the differences between them are crucial. A contract defines an exchange of goods and services. But a covenant defines a moral relationship between persons. In a contract, I seek my own interests, I strike a deal. But in a covenant, I seek the common good of the relationship and everyone in it. A contract includes an opt-out clause so I can leave if I no longer feel my interests are being served. But a covenant is a moral commitment of the whole person.

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (p. 98). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

As an aside, do you see what happens when we treat marriage like a contract instead of a covenant? In a contract, each person enters for their own good in an exchange and they leave when they are not getting what they want. In a covenant, the parties enter a moral relationship for the good of the other and the relationship.

She goes on to then say:

But in social contract theory, a social institution was no longer defined as an organic unity with a common good. It was merely an aggregate of autonomous individuals, all pursuing their own interests. And if there was no common good, then a man’s duty could no longer be defined as responsibility for protecting the common good. Men were set free to pursue self-interest.

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (p. 99). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

One place of common good was the household which gets us to women’s suffrage. When the idea first came up to allow women to vote, it had a lot of opposition. From the “patriarchy?” No! From women!

When the issue of women’s suffrage was first raised, most women actually opposed it—a fact that puzzles modern historians. Even the early feminist leaders acknowledged that the vote was not popular with women. Alice Stone Blackwell, a leading suffragist, wrote, “The chief obstacle to equal suffrage is the indifference and opposition of women.” Suffragists Susan B. Anthony and Ida Harper wrote, “In the indifference, the inertia, the apathy of women lies the greatest obstacle to their enfranchisement.”

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (pp. 99-100). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

The right of women to vote would be seen as breaking the house into not one common unit all voting together as one, but as individuals who could each go their own way. The woman would thus be her own individual and the man would no longer be looking for the good of the whole household.

Now that we have a division in place, women started to be seen as more superior. After all, they were the ones raising the families for the most part. One aspect of this I hadn’t considered was angels. Typically, angels in the Bible are fearsome creatures. They constantly seem to have to tell people to not be afraid immediately.

But in the Victorian age, angels began to be portrayed as young women—delicate, sweet, and guarding little children. Brown concludes, “One of the great mythic transformations of the early nineteenth century was the feminization of angels.”

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (p. 109). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Also interestingly in the past, the strong sex drive was not seen as being on the part of the men. It was on the part of the women. The women were seen as having insatiable lust that would men astray. This is not to say that men don’t have a strong sex drive, as many of us men will attest, but it does mean that feminism has come to be something quite different.

What this would mean eventually was that men needed to have women in their lives to ensure that they were virtuous and if there wasn’t a woman, well the man could pursue his self-interest. Women do contribute to men, but a man can be and needs to be virtuous even without a woman in his life. We now have it that men are bad boys and once a woman gets a man, she has to shape him up.

This had an effect then on church life and ministry:

Even the tone of American evangelicalism became softer and more emotional. In a classic book on the subject, The Feminization of American Culture, Ann Douglas says the ministry lost “a toughness, a sternness, an intellectual rigor which our society then and since has been accustomed to identify with ‘masculinity.’” Instead, the ministry took on traits society has typically identified with femininity, such as care, nurturing, and tenderheartedness.

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (p. 115). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Around this time, we also had attacks coming in based on higher criticism, evolution, and philosophy. The church should have responded with intellectual rigor, but no, they went into retreat. Christianity was based on the emotional experience at that point. Christianity then became a private faith. (Want to know what God is saying? Don’t go to public Scripture, but go to private experience.)

Right now, things are not looking good for the church in the world and a lot of it has had to do with the erasure of masculinity.

We shall continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

 

Book Plunge: The Toxic War on Masculinity Part 1

What do I think of Nancy Pearcey’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Let’s take a break and review a good book. This is a book that I highly encourage all of you to buy immediately. You can buy it here and support what I am doing at the same time as well.

The scene is at a bar. College students frequent this bar for hanging out and socializing. In comes a 28 year-old man who tosses in a smoke grenade for confusion and then comes in and starts shooting.

In response are men who start pushing others under a table, especially the women, and shield them with their bodies. They break windows so people can escape and repeatedly go in and out of the bar leading people to safety.

From here, Pearcey talks about how the APA in 2018 said traditional masculinity is harmful, but then asks a question.

Who here showed traditional masculinity?

Hint: It’s not the shooter.

Real masculinity has been shown in history when the Titanic goes down and men watch as women and children are escorted off. A famous story has one man putting on his tuxedo so he can die as a gentleman. These men knew they were dying. They knew the women would go on. They accepted it.

This is not the problem.

Pearcey says that when we make a blanket statement though on masculinity being a problem, the solution is really for men to be emasculated. Not necessarily physically, shudder the thought, but at least psychologically and emotionally. She contends that masculinity is not toxic. Sometimes, strength is needed to protect the innocent. Masculinity as it was made is good.

When you denigrate manhood, many men remain boys. One aspect of this is a fear of commitment. Not a problem for many of them. It’s especially easy for them to get casual sex for instance, without having to commit. The very women complaining about men are the ones enabling the traits that they don’t want.

It’s not any better at church. David Murrow wrote a book called Why Men Hate Going To Church which is well worth reading. Jesus is often portrayed as a weakling. No. I am not saying Jesus should be some macho type, but we should be able to see Jesus as a man we want to be like. That could mean we need to change our idea of masculinity, but we definitely need Jesus to be a man.

But doesn’t the Bible tell wives to submit? Here’s something interesting. She cites Bradley Wilcox who says the most violent husbands in America are nominal Protestants who attend church rarely if ever. They have enough Bible verses they can use to justify themselves in their eyes without a worldview behind it.

By contrast, who are seen as the most loving and faithful husbands? Conservative evangelicals.

Why is it that churchgoing, theologically conservative family men test out as the most loving husbands and fathers of any major group in America? The key factor, sociologists discovered, is that these men have a strong commitment to the family as the foundational institution in society. They believe marriage is not primarily about individual fulfillment but about forming a stable, loving home to raise a family.

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (p. 38). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

These men know they are to cherish their wives. These men know they are to build a family. These men know this woman is going to be the mother of their children. Evangelical conservative wives have the highest satisfaction in their marriages and it’s not about gender roles and who does the workload. It’s about getting valued for your contribution.

Now some skeptical men might be saying “Yeah, but these are religious prudes.” Well, consider this:

Women who are highly religious also report greater sexual satisfaction than other women. This surprising fact turned up as far back as 1977 in a survey by Redbook magazine, and it has been repeatedly replicated. One study found that “for both the wives and husbands, feeling that God was part of their marriage was positively associated with sexual satisfaction.” Another study concluded, “When it comes to relationship quality in heterosexual relationships, highly religious couples enjoy higher-quality relationships and more sexual satisfaction, compared to less/mixed religious couples and secular couples.” The National Health and Social Life Survey, the most detailed analysis of sexual behavior in America, found that people in intact marriages who worshiped weekly “were most likely to report feeling wanted and needed during intercourse” (94.9 percent).

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (pp. 40-41). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Another important aspect is a conservative Christian approach changes men:

For example, anthropologist Elizabeth Brusco conducted a study of evangelicalism or Pentecostalism (she used the terms interchangeably) in Colombia. As a feminist trained in Marxist thought, Brusco expected to find that Christianity would be “a powerful tool of patriarchy.” Instead, she discovered that when a man converts to evangelical Protestantism, he stops drinking, smoking, gambling, and sleeping around. He begins to direct his money to his family. As a result, the household income goes up and the family’s standard of living increases. The children are better educated, they develop better life skills, and the entire family experiences upward mobility. Brusco concludes that conversion to biblical Christianity has the effect of “re-attaching males to the family . . . thereby dramatically improving the quality of life within the confines of the family.”

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (p. 44). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

While many feminists see the biblical attitude as a problem, it’s quite the opposite:

Surprisingly, Martin argues that biblical Christianity has done far more than Western feminism to improve the lives of poor women around the globe. In her words, gender equality has been rigorously preached by Western development agencies and mainline church organizations. Yet, it is not Western feminism, even in its Christian variant, which has transformed for the better the lives of millions of poor women in developing societies. They have been “empowered” by a “regressive,” “fundamentalist” Christian movement whose theological rawness and lack of intellectual sophistication causes problems and embarrassment to enlightened Western observers. Martin concludes that “if there is a ‘women’s movement’ among the poor of the developing world, Pentecostalism has a good claim to the title.”

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (p. 45). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Some might also think that these could be Puritanical attitudes, but as Pearcey shows, the Puritans get a bad rap. They were not living in the constant fear someone might be enjoying themselves. If anything, most men would love to hear things like this from the pulpit:

Another minister, William Perkins, wrote that sexual relations between a married couple should be “an holy kind of rejoicing and solacing themselves.” He insisted that sex is as “spiritual” as preaching: “Yea, deeds of matrimony are pure and spiritual . . . and whatsoever is done within the laws of God, though it be wrought by the body . . . yet are they sanctified.”

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (pp. 78-79). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

The Puritans also preached against domestic violence. They had no patience for a husband who abused his wife.

In 1641 the Massachusetts Bay Colony enacted the first law anywhere in the world against domestic violence: “Every married woman shall be free from bodily correction or stripes by her husband.”42 The law was soon amended to include wives beating their husbands, as well as “unnatural severity” against children and servants. One Massachusetts man was even brought to court and fined when neighbors complained that he told his wife she was “but his Servant.”

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (p. 79). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

This all sounds good.

But how did we get from here to an age where you can have a hashtag with Kill All Men tweeted around?

We’ll take a further look at that next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Obstacle 4

Can we know what was written? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So Madison gets to his fourth obstacle which is certainly a doozy! We don’t have any original manuscripts!

Which I don’t think any ancient historian gets in a panic about concerning the ancient documents that we have, to which I don’t know a single original manuscript that we have. But hey, in fundamentalist atheist land, that doesn’t matter. We can know what those other documents said even though we have far fewer copies and those copies are a greater chronological distance from the original.

This isn’t my opinion alone either. Here’s what one New Testament scholar had to say on that one.

If the primary purpose of this discipline is to get back to the original text, we may as well admit either defeat or victory, depending on how one chooses to look at it, because we’re not going to get much closer to the original text than we already are.… At this stage, our work on the original amounts to little more than tinkering. There’s something about historical scholarship that refuses to concede that a major task has been accomplished, but there it is.

Also in a book he has on the New Testament he wrote:

In spite of these remarkable [textual] differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy.

So who was this guy? Bruce Metzger? Dan Wallace? Some evangelical scholar?

Nope. Bart Ehrman.

This is the first reference: Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior: An Evaluation: TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1998, a revision of a paper presented at the Textual Criticism section of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature in San Francisco. http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Ehrman1998.html

This is the second:

Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 481

In this brief part, Madison cites no scholarship. He points to the story of the woman caught in adultery and the long woman in Mark. He is unaware that this is not new information as even the early church knew about these. The fact that we know that these are not part of the original manuscripts is actually evidence about the reliability of the manuscripts that we have.

He also says something about the sloppy copying process, but there is no data for this and nothing to indicate that even though many scribes in early Christianity were not professionals, that we have a significant loss. There is nothing about the number of manuscripts that we have. There is nothing about the dating of the manuscripts that we have. There is nothing about references in the early church fathers.

And this is the kind of material that internet atheists look at and consider to be powerful arguments. These are arguments that sadly Madison wrote in a book because he thought that they were something worth paying attention to. All he has done is just demonstrated his ignorance of the subject matter.

We’ll move on to the next section next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Obstacle 3

Is oral tradition unreliable? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

As Madison begins this chapter, does he reference any of the scholars of oral tradition in history? Of course not. No Bailey, McIver, Lord, Perry, Dunn, etc. Nope. He sticks with Helms, who is not a scholar, and then references Tom Dykstra. I had to do some digging to find out anything about him which took a bit since he is pretty much cited only on mythicist websites.

One site I found had this to say:

First, a little about Dykstra. He is an “Independent Researcher” who lives in Bellevue, Washington. Some of you may be familiar with his blog. The “About” page tells us that he “got a Bachelors degree in Russian language and history; a Master of Divinity from a Russian Orthodox Seminary, focusing on church history; and a Ph.D. in medieval Russian history.” He has taught undergraduate and graduate courses in Russian history, and published a book based on his dissertation (concerning Russian monks in the 16th century). Tom’s goal is to write “historical fiction,” by which he has in mind novels “meticulously researched and historically accurate,” such as Oliver Wiswell by Kenneth Roberts, a book that greatly influenced him. Tom believes that historical fiction brings the past alive in a way ‘straight’ history cannot, if only because we lack many facts and because history is a one-sided account generally written by the winners. So, he finds truth in the loser’s side of the story and appreciates “the flaws of the heroes and the goodness of the villains.”

But now for another crazy theory from mythicists. According to this site also, what is Dykstra’s hypothesis?

But I already digress. What I find remarkable about Dykstra’s book is not that Mark ‘canonizes’ Paul, but how Mark did it. You see, Dykstra argues that Mark patterned his central character—Jesus of Capernaum—on Paul! Now, I’ve not come across that thesis before. But I do find it intriguing.

Dykstra offers well-reasoned and detailed arguments as to why Jesus visits Gentile terrain (as did Paul), sits with foreigners (ditto), rejects Jewish legalism (ditto), has so much trouble with Peter (you guessed it) and, above all, why Jesus sacrificed his life on the cross (I’m working on that)—which event Paul taught was the key to salvation through belief.

By the way, the same site also says Christians park their brains at the church door.

Madison meanwhile contends Paul doesn’t seem to know anything about the traditions of Jesus since He says almost nothing about them.

Well, he refers to them thrice in 1 Cor. Second, why should he? That would have been background knowledge to the audience. There was no need to repeat what they already knew.

Unfortunately, that’s about it for this section. So let’s see, in an argument about oral tradition, Madison cites no scholars of oral tradition, doesn’t even mention any of their names, and we’re supposed to take him seriously?

These guys never seem to know a thing about what they argue against.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Part 2

Were the Gospel writers trying to write history? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So Madison starts off with this section telling us the Gospel writers were more interested in writing theology and not history.

Which is apparent, since, you know, they recorded so many historical events.

His first example is Mark having two verses on Jesus going into the wilderness saying that historians wince at something like this. Unfortunately, he doesn’t name any of these historians. He says it’s because 40 days looks to parallel what happened with Israel, to which we say, “Isn’t it obvious?” Second is that who counted? (As if Jesus couldn’t tell Himself?) Third, Satan and angels are mythological figures. That’s bringing in your philosophy and theology into history to say ipso facto they’re not real.

Madison won’t cite any sources. I will.

The “forty days” recalls Moses on the mountain (Exod 24:18; 34:28), Elijah’s journey to the sacred mountain (1 Kgs 19:8), Jesus’ instruction of his disciples (Acts 1:3), and perhaps even Israel’s forty years in the wilderness (especially Deut 8:2). The word translated “tempted” also means tested, and that is probably the primary idea here. “Satan” is the anglicized form of the Greek transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning adversary. Only Mark indicates that Jesus was “with the wild animals.” Commentators divide over whether the animals were favorably disposed toward him and, therefore, symbolize the tranquility of the messianic kingdom after the defeat of Satan or whether they were hostile toward him and symbolize the forces of evil. Mark was concerned with the test itself, not its result. The intertestamental Jewish concept of the desert as the haunt of demons further supports the latter view. Mark did not indicate whether the angels “attended” or “ministered to” (RSV) Jesus during or after the temptation or whether they helped him resist, fed him, or witnessed what he did. Nor did Mark state that Jesus was victorious, perhaps because he looked upon Jesus’ entire life as a continuing struggle with Satan. Perhaps the episode was recorded partly to encourage the original readers/hearers in their trials and temptations.

James A. Brooks, Mark (vol. 23; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 44.

And

For example, the story starts in the wilderness (NIV, desert), not in the holy temple of the holy city (as in Luke) or with the heavenly council of God before creation (as in John). The wilderness image would evoke all kinds of memories for those grounded in the Old Testament. For those reading from translations that refer to “the wilderness” (e.g., NRSV, REB), that word might rouse a picture from a Wilderness Society poster with a lush forest, sparkling streams, snow-capped mountains, and wild animals (buffalo roaming and antelope playing), which cause tourists excitedly to stop their cars on the highway to take snapshots. For Jews, however, the wilderness/desert called forth a host of different images. It was more than just a place on the margins of civilization; it evoked a variety of powerful biblical memories and expectations. For one, it marked the place of beginnings. It was the region where God led the people out and from which they crossed over Jordan and seized the land promised to them. It was the place to which God allured the people to win them back (Hos. 2:14). It was also the place where one went to flee iniquity. According to 2 Maccabees 5:27, Judas Maccabeus fled with nine others to the wilderness and lived off what grew wild “so that they might not share in the defilement.” According to the Martyrdom of Isaiah 2:7–11, the prophets Isaiah, Micah, Ananias, Joel, Habbakuk, and Josab, his son, all abandoned the corruption of Judah for the mountainous wilderness, where they clothed themselves in sackcloth, lamented bitterly over straying Israel, and ate wild herbs.
The wilderness was also considered to be “the staging ground for Yahweh’s future victory over the power of evil.” It was the place where some thought that the final holy war would be fought and won (1QM 1:2–3). The Christ was thought to appear in the wilderness (Matt. 26:24), and it was the haunt of messianic diviners, such as the Egyptian false prophet (Acts 21:38). The wilderness was not only God’s staging grounds for the eschatological victory, it was also God’s proving grounds for testing the people. Consequently, it was remembered as the place of disobedience, judgment, and grace.

David E. Garland, Mark (The NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 52–53.

He also says that the Sermon on the Mount could not have come from Jesus since it relies so much on the Greek of the LXX. All of this assumes that Jesus could not have spoken in Greek but even if He spoke in Aramaic, a skilled writer could interpret that in the best way in Greek. But then, his source is Carrier for this….

He points out how Jesus did miracles paralleling those of Elijah such as the feeding miracles. (Though it was actually Elisha.) Well, of course Jesus would do this just as He would parallel Israel! He would be out there showing that He was in the same mold, but He was the superior model. He also says the crucifixion was based on verses from the Psalms. Nowhere does that indicate that this was not historical and the crucifixion is one of the surest facts that can be known about Jesus.

“The fact of the death of Jesus as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable, despite hypotheses of a pseudo-death or a deception which are sometimes put forward. It need not be discussed further here.” (Gerd Ludemann. .”What Really Happened To Jesus?” Page 17.)

Christians who wanted to proclaim Jesus as messiah would not have invented the notion that he was crucified because his crucifixion created such a scandal. Indeed, the apostle Paul calls it the chief “stumbling block” for Jews (1 Cor. 1:23). Where did the tradition come from? It must have actually happened. (Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Third Edition. pages 221-222)

 

Jesus was executed by crucifixion, which was a common method of torture and execution used by the Romans. (Dale Martin, New Testament History and Literature. Page 181)

 

That Jesus was executed because he or someone else was claiming that he was the king of the Jews seems to be historically accurate. (ibid. 186)

 

Jesus’ execution is as historically certain as any ancient event can ever be but what about all those very specific details that fill out the story? (John Dominic Crossan

Madison says all the Gospels were also written after AD 70. No evidence is given for this. (Remember boys and girls, atheists are against taking anything on faith, except their assertions.)

Madison then goes on after quoting Randal Helms to say:

The historical Jesus is not easy to find, but even so, most secular historians accept that Jesus existed. That yes, he was a real person. But that doesn’t mean Christians can breathe a sigh of relief. Priests and preachers don’t make a habit of keeping laypeople up to date on debates raging in New Testament academia—and indeed, there has been considerable debate about what can be known about Jesus. No one has developed a reliable method for identifying genuine history in the gospels. Hence there have been many different “Jesus proposals,” i.e., who and what he actually was—and precious little agreement. Most of these scholars, bear in mind, are devout and have an emotional investment in getting to the bottom of this “Jesus problem.” Most of the folks in the pews are unaware of these problems that plague any serious Jesus study.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 103-104). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

That’s strange because I have been citing non-Christian scholars here to make my case. Madison has pointed to no scholarly works on the historical Jesus or made any comparisons to study of any other figures out there. Again, he likes to talk about evidence, except for when it comes to his position. Madison is still a preacher. It’s just for the other side.

I urge you to avoid knee-jerk reactions like, “Of course, Jesus existed, don’t be silly.” There is indignation at the very idea that Jesus might not have existed, but not enough curiosity. Please do some homework. Find out why there are doubts that Jesus ever lived. Bring some understanding to the debate. I’m a little suspicious of Christians who flame out on this issue but who cannot cite any of the hard facts that point to a mythical Jesus.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 104). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Yep. Did it already. I have read a number of mythicist works, including Carrier’s, and have debated Ken Humphreys on this issue.

Even devout scholars admit there is no contemporaneous documentation at all for anything Jesus said or did.

The teachings and deeds of Jesus—even his miracles reported in the gospels—are not mentioned in the New Testament epistles written well before the gospels.

There is so much folklore, fantasy, superstition, and magical thinking in the gospels. What are the implications of this when we’re trying to figure out who Jesus really was, on the assumption that he existed?

As of yet, no reliable methodology has been developed for identifying, for sure, which gospel stories are actually historical. Exactly where are the certain tidbits of history in the gospels? Gospel experts have arrived at no consensus.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 104-105). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

So let’s go through these.

For the first, this assumes the Gospels aren’t contemporary or the epistles, but even if they aren’t, the same applies to Hannibal, Queen Boudica, and Arminius who was a German leader who won a massive victory over the Roman Empire. We only have one historical source at the time describing the eruption of Vesuvius and it’s only over a century later that another historian mentions that a second city was destroyed.

For the second, yes, because the epistles aren’t written to be biographies. They assume a high background knowledge of Jesus already.

Third, this is just Ancient People Were Stupid thinking.

Fourth, this assumes that history is done in the same way other fields are done. Everyone pretty much plays by the same rules and accepts their papers to others for peer-review and writes books critiqued by others.

Finally, Madison recommends a number of mythicist authors like Price, Lataster, Doherty, Fitzgerald, and of course, Carrier.

One final point; if the Gospels were more interested in theology instead of history, I find it strange that when we get to the resurrection, we see none of that. We see no Scripture citations. We see nothing about the doctrine of the atonement or justification by faith. Surely this would be the best place for that, and yet it is absent.

Strange, isn’t it?

Next time it’s oral tradition.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Obstacle 1

What keeps us supposedly from knowing what Jesus taught? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am going to go through these one-by-one here as this is a part 2 to the book, but first, let’s quote how this begins.

In 2004, devout Christian scholar Ben Witherington III published a 400-page commentary on the apostle Paul’s Letter to the Romans. It includes a 19-page bibliography of other works about Paul and his writings, and Witherington said, “…this list could go on for miles.” Indeed, the output of scholars—the results of their intensive study of the New Testament for decades—is nothing short of phenomenal.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 91). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Why do I cite this? Because I disagree? Certainly not. Because this is the start of a powerful argument? Not at all.

It’s because this is the only time that Madison cites a conservative scholar and even then you don’t get any content of it except “This could go on for miles.”

Really doing the work there, Madison.

Madison starts with asking what we could know about an event like the Gettysburg Address. He talks about all the sources we could cite and then says this:

No such references exist for the Jesus story. The four gospels were written decades after the events depicted, and not once do their authors provide specific details about their sources.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 93). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Because there’s nothing like comparing events that are 1800 years apart.

I mean, the only differences are the location, the time, the place, the languages spoken, the literacy of the people involved and how many of them were literate, the nature of the culture involved, the cost of writing materials, and what it would take to distribute writing materials, and those are just off the top of my head.

You know, little details like that.

And before I comment on that he says:

If you don’t identify your sources and cite contemporaneous documentation, the story doesn’t qualify as history.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 93-94). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

And who made up these rules? Certainly not ancient historians. Will Madison apply the same to Suetonius, Plutarch, Tacitus, Josephus, and many others? While sure some will tell their sources, many times stories will go without what Madison would consider proper footnoting. Many of them also wrote about events long before their time.

He then cites Carrier (Please stop laughing) talking about the long speeches in John. (I at this point have to be careful what I choose to cut and paste since apparently I have got close to my limits.) Naturally, Carrier says that since these don’t show up in the other Gospels, then John must be lying. Yep. That has to be it. Go ahead and attribute the worst motives to the ancient authors.

It couldn’t possibly be there are different reasons. It could well be Jesus taught in both forms and the Synoptics reported what is easier to remember. John wants to make a statement for his community to show why they are different and thus shows more of a back-and-forth dialogue going on on long and extended topics.

But what about Jesus’s words themselves. How do we know we have them right? Was anyone writing them down? Well first off, Matthew being a tax collector very well could have been writing down shorthand. Without that, these parables and stories would likely be told many many times and remembered and ancient people had much better memories than we do. Naturally, Madison doesn’t look at any sources on oral cultures or with modern scholars like Bailey, McIver, or Dunn.

So strike the first obstacle as a no-go.

But were the Gospels meant to be history? We’ll look at that next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Part 10

Is Jesus a false prophet? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

With my interest in eschatology, I was quite pleased to see this last of the ten things Christians supposedly wish Jesus hadn’t taught. Naturally, there will be no interaction with orthodox Preterism at all. Madison has the fundamentalist viewpoint throughout the chapter. Let’s go ahead and see what he has.

Madison begins with 1 Thess. 4:13-17 where Paul says that Christ returns, “we which are alive and remain” and jumps to his preferred conclusion.

This is a window into the earliest Christian thinking—at least Paul’s version of it. How can these verses not be an embarrassment? Paul was confident that he would be alive for this momentous event: “…we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them…” The imminent arrival of Jesus was a constant theme in Paul’s letters.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 73-74). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

I am reminded again of the joke where the pastor is filling out his sermon outline and writes in the side at one of the points, “Weak point. Pound pulpit harder.”

Of course, Madison could have consulted some scholars on this to see what was said, but what would be the fun in that?

V. 15 has been a flashpoint in the discussion of Pauline eschatology at least since the time of A. Schweitzer. Here, it is said, we have proof positive that Paul believed that he would live to see the parousia of Jesus. But this overlooks at least a couple key factors: Paul did not know in advance when he would die, and he argues that the second coming will happen at an unexpected time, like a thief in the night. It could be soon, it could be later, and in either case the indeterminacy of the timing is what fuels exhortations that one must always be prepared and alert. Since Paul does not claim to know the specific timing of either his own death or the return of Christ, he could not have said “we who are dead and not left around to see the parousia of the Lord.…” In short, he does not know that he will not be alive when Jesus returns, and so the only category in which he can logically place himself and the Christians he writes to here is the “living.”
What these verses surely do imply is that Paul thought it possible that he might be alive when Jesus returned. As Best rightly suggests, Paul, until he was much older and near death, always had both possibilities before him. We do not hear the language of possible survival until the parousia in the later Pauline letters because one of the two unknowns, the timing of Paul’s death, was becoming more likely to precede the other, the parousia. He did not change his view of the second coming or consider it delayed in the later Paulines because without knowledge of when it was supposed to happen one cannot could speak of it as “delayed.” Paul’s imagery of the thief implies a denial of knowing with that sort of precision

Ben Witherington III, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 133–134.

Thus, according to Witherington, Paul took the safest route. Had he said they, it would have meant Paul knew it would happen after his lifetime, but he knew no such thing. It could happen during his, he doesn’t know. Thus, the safest thing to say is we.

The objection is nothing new. Calvin even brings it up in his time:

As to the circumstance, however, that by speaking in the first person he makes himself, as it were, one of the number of those who will live until the last day, he means by this to arouse the Thessalonians to wait for it, nay more, to hold all believers in suspense, that they may not promise themselves some particular time: for, granting that it was by a special revelation that he knew that Christ would come at a somewhat later time, it was nevertheless necessary that this doctrine should be delivered to the Church in common, that believers might be prepared at all times. In the mean time, it was necessary thus to cut off all pretext for the curiosity of many—as we shall find him doing afterwards at greater length. When, however, he says, we that are alive, he makes use of the present tense instead of the future, in accordance with the Hebrew idiom.

John Calvin and John Pringle, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 282.

Moving on from there, we see more of the fundamentalism of Madison.

Apocalypticism is a relic of ancient superstition. Jesus, at his trial, tells the high priest: “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14:62, NRSV) Obviously, this text has been falsified by history. It didn’t happen.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 76). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Yes. Obviously, Caiaphas was to wake up one morning, open the window, and see Jesus sitting on a cloud riding into Jerusalem like Goku on a nimbus. Perhaps he should have looked at the ways clouds are used at times in the Old Testament.

“There is no one like the God of Jeshurun, who rides across the heavens to help you and on the clouds in his majesty. Deut. 33:26

“In my distress I called to the Lord;
I called out to my God.
From his temple he heard my voice;
my cry came to his ears.
8 The earth trembled and quaked,
the foundations of the heavens[c] shook;
they trembled because he was angry.
9 Smoke rose from his nostrils;
consuming fire came from his mouth,
burning coals blazed out of it.
10 He parted the heavens and came down;
dark clouds were under his feet.
11 He mounted the cherubim and flew;
he soared[d] on the wings of the wind.
12 He made darkness his canopy around him—
the dark[e] rain clouds of the sky.
13 Out of the brightness of his presence
bolts of lightning blazed forth.
14 The Lord thundered from heaven;
the voice of the Most High resounded.
15 He shot his arrows and scattered the enemy,
with great bolts of lightning he routed them.
16 The valleys of the sea were exposed
and the foundations of the earth laid bare
at the rebuke of the Lord,
at the blast of breath from his nostrils. 2 Samuel 22 (Repeated also in Psalms 18)

Thick clouds veil him, so he does not see us as he goes about in the vaulted heavens.’ Job 22:14

Sing to God, sing in praise of his name, extol him who rides on the clouds; rejoice before him—his name is the Lord. Psalms 68:4

Clouds and thick darkness surround him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne. Psalms 97:2

and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters. He makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the wind. Psalms 104:3

See, the Name of the Lord comes from afar, with burning anger and dense clouds of smoke; his lips are full of wrath, and his tongue is a consuming fire. Isaiah 30:27

Look! He advances like the clouds, his chariots come like a whirlwind, his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe to us! We are ruined! Jeremiah 4:13

For the day is near, the day of the Lord is near— a day of clouds, a time of doom for the nations. Ezekiel 30:3

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. Daniel 7:13

The Lord is slow to anger but great in power; the Lord will not leave the guilty unpunished. His way is in the whirlwind and the storm, and clouds are the dust of his feet. Nahum 1:3

The point is clouds are a symbol of judgment and the coming of the Lord, which are really the same thing. When the Lord comes, it is to judge. The claim is Caiaphas will someday see the Son of Man acting in judgment. This did indeed happen when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D.

To get back to Madison:

Hence theologians have retreated to a metaphoric interpretation of these texts: It must mean something spiritual. When I was a teen fascinated by astronomy, I asked my mother where heaven was, and she gave an answer that worked for a while: It is a state of being, a relationship with God. So, even though very pious, she also was savvy enough to know that heaven was not out there/up there to be surveyed by telescopes and rockets. So Stephen’s vision of Jesus standing next to God needs to be taken symbolically. But it’s harder to get away with a metaphorical interpretation of Jesus’ prediction that those attending his trial would see the Son of Man “coming with the clouds of heaven.” There was a passionate belief that the Messiah would show up, in person, real-time in the real world, to—among other things—toss out the Romans. Surely this must qualify as a major thing Christians wish Jesus hadn’t taught—even those who still hope that Jesus is coming back. They have to keep coming up with excuses as to why all of the predictions about the timing of the big day—made through the centuries—have been wrong.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 77-78). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

It’s not an embarrassment at all. If anything, it’s a confirmation. That Jerusalem was destroyed within a generation of crucifying the Messiah just as Jesus prophesied is all the more reason to trust Him.

What about Matthew 24? You can see my series on that starting here. What about Jesus saying that some of those present will not taste death until He “returns”? Right here.

Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28, NRSV) This sounds like a line from a fantasy novel—or science fiction. The gospel writers apparently didn’t check their own storylines for consistency. Surely this is a blunder: You who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones? Twelve? This would suggest that Jesus hadn’t yet figured out that Judas wasn’t really on the team.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 84). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Which means it’s all the more likely that Jesus said this. Nevertheless, it’s not a problem. One can include Matthias in that since he was added to the twelve. Some might even want to say Paul is the proper choice. Either way, the twelve came to be a reference to Jesus’s disciples as shown even in 1 Cor. 15.

And here are two Jesus sayings in the same chapter of Mark that can’t both be true. “And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations…” This is something which would not happen for a long time. And “…Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.”

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 84-85). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

With regard to the first, Paul thought it had. See what he said in Colossians 1:23.

if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

And as for the second, again, covered in my look at the Olivet Discourse and you can find that here. (link is to part 1)

So this is the end. Right? Nope. Madison closes this part with saying the Gospels don’t count as biographies and aren’t historically reliable and he is going to give some “hope” to struggling Christians now.

The games are only just beginning.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)