New Testament Contradictions Invalidated

New Testament Contradictions Invalidated Introduction For centuries the evangelical church and other orthodox Christian denominations positions regarding the inerrancy of the Bible have been challenged. Skeptics.org has chosen to call us fundamentalist idiots because we hold to the fact that the Bible is the word of God. Henry Burr in 1859 published this or a variation of the document that Skeptics.org is using to insult Christians and the Christian faith. To see the document and their comments click this lin<a href="/goto?url=http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html" target="_blank">k </a><a href="/goto?url=http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html" target="_blank">http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html</a><a href="/goto?url=http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html" target="_blank">. </a>I have taken their document and pasted it into this document and then carefully evaluated every single one of the 194 proposed contradictions. I have to admit I was shocked at the level of Biblical ignorance put forward and mortified that Skeptics.org would publish this document without even bothering to critically analyze these supposed contradictions. If it appears Skeptics.org was not seriously looking for real objections. When I saw this list for the first time, it shook me. I said to myself, are there 194 contradictions in the New Testament. My desire for the truth drove me into this document. If there were legitimate contradictions in the Bible I had to know. I have evaluated all 194 proposed contradictions and of the 194 there is perhaps 1 contradiction that I could not invalidate I used a blue highlighted title to illustrate that the contradiction has been invalidated. Green means I could not satisfy the contradiction to my standard of proof. Orange means I accept the argument but cannot prove it 100%. Below you will find the contradiction by number as published in skeptics.org document and below that, you will find my comments. Some comments are short and some are long, the answer depends on the complexity of the explanation. I have to thank skeptics.org, they forced me to dig in and look at the scriptures like never before. Thank you skeptics.org, you have caused my faith in the scriptures to grow exponentially. 1. Lineage Jesus' lineage was traced through David's son Solomon. Mt.1:6. Jesus' lineage was traced through David's son Nathan. Lk.3:31. Comments: This is an apparent contradiction that the skeptic put forward, that I could not solve 100%, For me, the most important factor regarding Jesus’s lineage is found In Jer 22:24-30 where we see that Jeremiah pronounces judgment against the line of Solomon when he said no descendant of Jehoiakim (Jer 36:30) would sit on the throne of David. So many argue that Jesus could not be the Messiah based on this curse. However this curse was reversed in Haggai 2:20-23 … O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel, declares the LORD, and make you like signet ring for I have chosen you, declares the Lord of Host.” This proves the Messiah Jesus can indeed come from the direct lineage of Solomon to be the Messiah... 1. One theory regarding the differences in genealogies is that Luke genealogies are Mary’s lineage and Matthew genealogy is Joseph’s, I think contextually this could be possible based on Jewish law which is validated In 1 Chron 2:34-35 “ where it say<a href="/goto?url=http://biblehub.com/1_chronicles/2-34.htm" target="_blank">s </a><a href="/goto?url=http://biblehub.com/1_chronicles/2-34.htm" target="_blank">34</a><a href="/goto?url=http://biblehub.com/1_chronicles/2-34.htm" target="_blank">No</a>w Sheshan had no sons, only daughters, but Sheshan had an Egyptian slave whose name was Jarha<a href="/goto?url=http://biblehub.com/1_chronicles/2-35.htm" target="_blank">.</a><a href="/goto?url=http://biblehub.com/1_chronicles/2-35.htm" target="_blank">35</a><a href="/goto?url=http://biblehub.com/1_chronicles/2-35.htm" target="_blank">S</a>o Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to Jarha his slave, and she bore him Attai. <a href="/goto?url=http://biblehub.com/1_chronicles/2-36.htm" target="_blank">36</a><a href="/goto?url=http://biblehub.com/1_chronicles/2-36.htm" target="_blank">A</a>ttai fathered Nathan, and Nathan fathered Zabad.”. Here we see the Hebrew lineage being carried forward from the daughter but the father is named in the lineage. 2. Another theory is the Matthew genealogy is the royal lineage of Jesus. This theory is put forward because we do see a list of Kings. It should also be pointed out that Matthew is using a Davidic formula when he gives three sets of 14. He uses 14 because the name David is 14 numerically in Hebrew. He even uses the same name twice to make this work. Matthew is simply trying to prove Jesus is a royal son of David. Both these theories lack credible evidence to say they are correct. Then how do we explain Joseph’s two fathers, in Matthew, his father is called Jacob and in Luke, he is called Heli. There are several proposed explanations like: 1. Mary did not have any brothers to carry on the father’s name so Heli adopted Joseph as his son, so he would have two genealogies. 2. In Dt 25:5 it says a brother must marry the widow of his brother and then carry on the brother's name and produce an heir for him. The first son would continue as the heir of the son who died. So if this is the case then Joseph and Heli were either full brothers or half-brothers. This would leave Joseph with two fathers a natural one and a legal one. From the text we have no idea which one was his natural and which one was his legal father. This does solve the problem with Matthew tracing one father and Luke tracing the other. In Num 27 & 36 we saw the law of inheritance showing when the daughter gets the inheritance. Both of these theories also lack credible evidence to say they are correct. There are also many other genealogical issues in Luke’s gospel coming from the 77 names that cannot be resolved. There is an extra Cainan, Arnic and Admin are untraceable, Joseph, Judah, Simeon, and Levi don’t fit as these names were not used during this period and no one knows who Neri and Rhesa are. A lot of questions and no answers. This was an issue for me, but not any longer. It appears to me we may be looking at this all wrong. Some scholars now believe the genealogies are theological and were never intended to be taken literally. In Matthew we see the repeat the history of Israel with Jesus as the new Israel. For example:  Only Matthew says out of Egypt I call my son, showing Jesus as the new Israel.  Jesus’s father is called Joseph who receives dreams. Joseph in the old covenant was the prophet associated with dreams.  We also see the infancy of Christ as a retelling of the origin of Israel.  Only in Matthew are we told the story of the massacre of infants by Herod the Great which is a retelling of the story associated with Moses.  We see Jesus being baptized passing through the waters which are a retelling of Israel passing through the Red Sea.  We see the Jews spent 40 years in the wilderness and in Matthew we Jesus spending 40 days and nights in the wilderness being tempted.  The last comparison in Matthew is Jesus climbing the mountain and giving the Sermon on the Mount, giving the laws of the Kingdom and in the Old Covenant we see Moses coming from the mountain with the law of God. The parallels are too similar to be coincidental. I believe no one can resolve the genealogies because they are theological lessons and not actual genealogies. Luke likewise tries to make every 7th person in his list of 77 significant. Here is the list of every 7th person. Enoch, Selah, Abraham, Admin, David, Joseph, Jesus, Shealtiel, Mattathias, Joseph, Jesus. Much research is required, but I believe scholars are on to something. I no longer look at the genealogies like I did before. I believe we are on the verge of uncovering exciting things we never expected from the genealogies. I now look at the genealogies as a mystery and not as an unsolvable contradiction. 2. Conception The announcement of the special birth came before conception. Lk.1:26-31. <a href="/goto?url=http://biblehub.com/luke/1-31.htm" target="_blank">31</a><a href="/goto?url=http://biblehub.com/luke/1-31.htm" target="_blank">Y</a>ou will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. The announcement of the special birth came after conception. Mt.1:18-21. <a href="/goto?url=http://biblehub.com/matthew/1-21.htm" target="_blank">21</a><a href="/goto?url=http://biblehub.com/matthew/1-21.htm" target="_blank">S</a>he will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, <a href="/goto?url=https://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/1.htm#footnotes" target="_blank">f </a>because he will save his people from their sins.” Comments: This is not a valid contradiction, in Lk the announcement is made to Mary, and in Mt the announcement is to Joseph in a dream that validated his decision to take Mary as his wife. T 3. Potential Jesus' parents were told of their son's future greatness. Mt.1:18-21; Lk.1:28-35. Jesus' parents knew nothing of their son's potential. Lk.2:48-50. Comments: This is not a valid contradiction, Mt says he will save his people, Lk 1 says and Lk 2 discusses the parent’s astonishment at the way he treated them not at the teachings. This is eisegesis reading into the text to try to validate a point. 4. Angel Declarations of Birth The angel told Joseph. Mt.1:20. The angel told Mary. Lk.1:28. Comments: This is not a valid contradiction. It assumes that only one announcement was made and an angel could not talk to Mary and Joseph separately. 5. Generation Tally There were 28 generations from David to Jesus. Mt.1:17. There were 43 generations from David to Jesus. Lk.3:23-31. Comments: There are 42 generations listed in Mt 1:17, not 28 and in Lk 3 does have 43, not 42 but it is a different lineage, so this cannot be counted twice as a contradiction. Their statement 0f 28 is factually incorrect. Some think that Biblical lineage is an exact science but they are interpreting record-keeping through modern and western eyes. This was simply not how the ancient record keepers thought. Actually biblical scholarship has provided evidence that genealogies are selective and contain gaps. The son can be grandfathers and even great grandfathers. For example Genesis 5 doesn’t list all the ancestor it only mentions the key ones. The ancients intended to preserve the antiquity of the race not give explicit and detailed family lines. Based on this evidence we need to think of genealogy in this way not on western and modern concepts. 6. Joseph’s Father Jacob was Joseph's father. Mt.1:16. Heli was Joseph's father. Lk.3:23. Comments: See comments in # 1 above also read (Num 27:1-11, Num 36:1-12) where women would receive the inheritance when no man was available. 7. Christ to be Called He was to be called Emmanuel. Mt.1:23. He was called Jesus. Mt.1:25. Comments: This is just a ridiculous assertion. Jesus has 99 titles in the New Covenant, notice it says he was to be called which means he will be known as. 8. Egypt Or Jerusalem Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt while Herod slaughters all males under 2 years old. Mt.2:13-16. (Note: Jesus' cousin, John, was also under 2 and survived without having to flee.) Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not flee to Egypt but remained for temple rituals. No slaughter of infants is mentioned! Lk.2:21-39. Comments: Notice the Wiseman came to Mary’s house and they lived in Nazareth so there is no contradiction Mary and Joseph followed the law as they should after the birth of Jesus. Joseph and Mary left for Egypt when Jesus was two and returned after Herod died. No contradiction at all. 9. Jesus Temptation Jesus was tempted during the 40 days in the wilderness. Mk.1:13. Jesus was tempted after the 40 days in the wilderness. Mt.4:2,3. Comments: Again no contradiction, in Mk it says Jesus was tempted during the 40 days, this could have been fiery darts and even in person, Mt says the 40th day is when Satan starts making offers. There is no contradiction. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">10. </li><li style="flex:1">Pinnacle or Mountain </li></ul>The devil first took Jesus to the pinnacle, then to the mountain top. Mt.4:5-8. The devil first took Jesus to the mountain top, then to the pinnacle. Lk.4:5-9. Comments: This is a little bit of deception here by throwing in the word first. The discrepancy assumes the writer’s placing high priority on the sequence of events verse the events themselves. The context of both Mt & Lk is not emphasizing sequence. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">11. </li><li style="flex:1">Satan Tempted Jesus or Not </li></ul>Satan tempted Jesus. Mt.4:1-10; Mk.1:13; Lk.4:1,2. Satan had no interest in Jesus. Jn.14:30. Comments: Jn 14:30 is possibly up to 3 years later. There is no correlation here. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">12. </li><li style="flex:1">Jesus Baptism of the Spirit </li></ul>The baptism of Jesus was with the "Holy Ghost". Mk.1:8; Jn.1:33. The fire was also added to the baptism. Mt.3:11; Lu.3:16. Comments: This challenge is clearly from the biblically illiterate. There is no concern adding the reference Fire it is symbolism for the Holy Spirit. See Ex 13:21. The Jews were led by a cloud during the day and fire by night, this leading was the Holy Spirit. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">13. </li><li style="flex:1">John New or Did Not Know Jesus </li></ul>John knew of Jesus before he baptized him. Mt.3:11-13; Jn.1:28,29. John knew nothing of Jesus at all. Mt.11:1-3. Comments: No contradiction, they were cousins and John Baptised Jesus, John was having doubts perhaps expecting the king messiah, not the suffering servant. Doubt is the issue here evidence “Are you the one to come”. It is clear John is seeking clarification of what Jesus will accomplish. 14. Jesus’s Ministry before Or after John’s Arrest Jesus begins his ministry after John's arrest. Mk.1:13,14. Jesus begins his ministry before John's arrest. Jn.3:22-24. Comments: Mk 1:13 says he came to Galilee and began to preach. Jesus and John are both preaching in Jn. At no time does this discuss the start of his ministry. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">15. </li><li style="flex:1">Spirit Descending- who saw </li></ul>It is recorded that Jesus saw the Spirit descending. Mt.3:16; Mk.1:10. It is recorded that John saw the Spirit descending. Jn.1:32. Comments: Mt 3:16 & Mk 1:10 does not say who heard, In John 1:32 its says he saw it, this does not preclude others from seeing it. Ridiculous assertion <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">16. </li><li style="flex:1">God & Jesus Sonship </li></ul>The heavenly voice addressed the gathering. Mt.3:17. The heavenly voice addressed Jesus. Mk.1:11; Lk.3:22. Comments: The challenge is based on the word this or you. This is stupid, If I was there, and was asked to give account I can see myself saying he said: “This is my son”. On the other hand I could repeat verbatim and say the voice from heaven said “you are my son” The important thing is the declaration of sonship not specifically how someone chooses to express it. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">17. </li><li style="flex:1">Wilderness or Cana </li></ul>Immediately after the baptism, Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness. Mt.4:1,2; Mk.1:12,13. Three days after the baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana. Jn.2:1. Comments: Mt uses then, Mk uses immediately and John says Jesus goes to the wedding. This is not a contradiction. Obviously the wedding was planned in advance and Jesus was required to attend, Jesus also felt the call to the wilderness. It is clear he goes to the wedding then immediately leaves for the wilderness. That would still fit the criteria immediately. We all talk like this. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">18. </li><li style="flex:1">Jesus Travel </li></ul>Jesus went to Bethphage and the Mt. of Olives, then left for Bethany. Mt.21:1,17. Jesus went to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mt. of Olives. Mk.11:1; Lk.19:29. Comments: Mk and LK are talking geography they use the word draw near, it is 5.5 km from Jerusalem to Bethphage and 2.2 km Bethpage to Bethany. There was a roadway connecting the 3 points. In Mt 21 it says drew near and named Jerusalem, Bethpage, and the Mount of Olives. In Mt 21:17 it says when leaving them he went to Bethany. This is after the tasks they completed. Mk 11:1 says draw near and adds Bethany in the list of places that they drew near to. Lk 19:29 also says drew near. Where is the contradiction, there is not one? <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">19. </li><li style="flex:1">Who Taught at Capernaum </li></ul>Jesus and his disciples taught in Capernaum. Mk.1:20,21. Only Jesus taught in Capernaum. Lk.4:30,31. Comments: Both referenced scriptures only say Jesus taught. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">20. </li><li style="flex:1">Peter Called Where & When </li></ul>Peter was chosen, with Andrew, by the Sea of Galilee. Mt.4:18-20; Mk.1:16-18. Peter was chosen, with James and John, by the lake of Gennesaret. Lk.5:2-11. Andrew chose Jesus and then got Peter to join. Jn.1:35-42. Comments: Mt & Mk both say Galilee, and Lk says Gennesaret. Very little effort went into this discrepancy, the lake was known by both names as well as Lake Tiberias, and others. There is no contradiction, just more details are presented. Peter already called Jesus Master and notice in Matthew 4:23 it says Jesus was teaching in different towns, no disciples with him, so it is clear Peter had not entered fulltime travel with Jesus. Notice in Lk 2:10 it says so also James and John. They were added. No contradiction at all. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">21. </li><li style="flex:1">Peter Preaching Assignment </li></ul>Peter was to preach to the Jews. Mt.10:2,5,6; Gal.2:7. Peter was to preach to the Gentiles. Acts 15:7. Comments: In Mt 10 Peter is told to preach to the Jews only. In Gal Peter is called to preach to the Jews. In Acts 15:7 Peter was the first to preach to the Gentiles so where is the contradiction. Just because you are called to the Jews does not mean you cannot preach to Gentiles at all. God used Peter to let the world know the Gentiles where included in the promise. This is bad reasoning. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">22. </li><li style="flex:1">Peter Mother Cured When </li></ul>Jesus cured Simon Peter's mother-in-law after he cleansed the leper. Mt.8:1-15. Jesus cured Simon Peter's mother-in-law before he cleansed the leper. Mk.1:30-42; Lk.4:38 to 5:13. Comments: Mt is giving a sequence of events placing the leper cleansing before the healing of the mother in law, in Mk it says and a leper came to him, it gives no inference to timing, it only says it happened. In Lk it says while in one of the cities a Leper came and Jesus healed him. If Jesus only ever healed one leper there is an argument, but this is not the case. No discrepancy here. 23. Peter Mother In Law Healed Peter's mother-in-law was healed before Peter was called to be a disciple. Lu.4:38,39; 5:10. Peter's mother-in-law was healed after Peter was called to be a disciple. Mt.4:18,19; 8:14,15; Mk.1:16,17,30,31. Comments: Peter was called before the event and is known by Jesus or why is he going to his house. In Lk 5 Peter calls him master and as we already discussed James and John are called in Chapter 5 not Peter. The gospel writer is simply telling us things that happened, he is not giving us an incident report from the scene of a crime. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">24. </li><li style="flex:1">James & John With or Not </li></ul>James and John were with Jesus when he healed Simon Peter's mother-in-law. Mk.1:29-31. James and John were not with Jesus when he healed Simon Peter's mother-in-law. Lu.4:38,39; 5:10,11. Comments: James and John are named in Mk, not naming in Lk 4 does not mean they were not there, Lk 4 gives no names at all. 25. Apostle Confusion Lebbaeus (Thaddaeus) was the name of an apostle - but no Judas, brother of James. Mt. 10:3. Judas, the brother of James, was an apostle, but no Thaddaeus. Lk.6:16; Acts 1:13. Comments: Judas was known as Judas Thaddaeus, and Labbaeus so there is no discrepancy. This implies that the people who are critiquing the Bible were not interested in intellectual honesty, they just want to discredit. INTERMISSION- So far 24 of the 25 discrepancies are not discrepancies, just objections from lazy people who did not want to do the work to prove what was true. 26. Centurion Healing The centurion's servant was healed in between the cleansing of the leper and the healing of Peter's mother-in-law. Mt.8:2-15. The centurion's servant was healed after the cleansing of the leper and the healing of Peter's mother-in-law. Lu.4:38,39; 5:12,13; 7:1-10. Comments: Mt 8:2-5 Jesus comes down from the mountain and in Lk 5:12-13 it says the healing took place in one of the cities. This is not even the same event. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">27. </li><li style="flex:1">Feeding the Multitude </li></ul>The people were not impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Mk.6:52. The people were very impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Jn.6:14. Comments: Mark says they were astonished, did not understand because their hearts were hardened. Jn says this is indeed a prophet. So where is the contradiction, I don’t see one. All of these reactions can occur simultaneously.

New Testament Contradictions Invalidated

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support