Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#51-75)

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#51-75) April 7, 2022

I will be resolving all of the alleged “contradictions” from the web page entitled “194 CONTRADICTIONS, New Testament.” It’s perpetually striking to observe how many of these are obviously not logical contradictions, and how very easy they are to refute (many being patently and evidently absurd). A few here and there do seem to be genuinely perplexing (at first glance) and require at least some thought and study and serious examination (they save my patience). But all are ultimately able to be (in my humble opinion) decisively resolved. Readers can decide whether I succeed in my task or not, in any given case. My biblical citations are from RSV. The words from the web page above will be in blue.

See further installments:

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#1-25) [4-5-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#26-50) [4-6-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#76-100) [4-8-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#101-125) [4-8-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#126-150) [4-9-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#151-175) [4-11-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#176-194) [4-11-22]

*****

51) Salvation comes by faith and not works. Eph.2:8,9; Rom.11:6; Gal.2:16; Rom.3:28.
Salvation comes by faith and works. Jms.2:14,17,20.

Salvation, in the biblical view (all the relevant and harmonious verses considered), comes by God’s grace, through faith, with works being part and parcel of the “outworking” of faith. See my papers on these topics:

Final Judgment & Works (Not Faith): 50 Passages [2-10-08]

St. Paul on Grace, Faith, & Works (50 Passages) [8-6-08]

Bible on the Nature of Saving Faith (Including Assent, Trust, Hope, Works, Obedience, and Sanctification) [1-21-10]

Salvation: By Grace Alone, Not Faith Alone or Works [2013]

Jesus vs. “Faith Alone” (Rich Young Ruler) [10-12-15]

52) The righteous have eternal life. Mt.25:46.
The righteous are barely saved. 1 Pet.4:18.

The ones who persevere in good works (as a general proposition) will have eternal life, according to the context of Matthew 25. At the same time, salvation is difficult to attain (another general proposition). No conflict here (apples and oranges).

53) Believe and be baptized to be saved. Mk.16:16.
Be baptized by water and the spirit to be saved. Jn.3:5.
Endure to the end to be saved. Mt.24:13.
Call on the name of the “Lord” to be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
Believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:31.
Believe, then all your household will be saved. Acts 16:31.
Hope and you will be saved. Rom.8:24.
Believe in the resurrection to be saved. Rom.10:9.
By grace you are saved. Eph.2:5
By grace and faith you are saved. Eph.2:8.
Have the love of truth to be saved. 2 Thes.2:10.
Mercy saves. Titus 3:5.

All of this has to be understood as a harmonious whole. All these factors work together and are aspects of the salvation process. I have dealt with these issues in #46-50 of the second installment, and in the previous two entries in this article. Baptism is also a factor in salvation, having to do with regeneration. It’s one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church, which are physical means to attain grace and salvation.

54) Backsliders are condemned. 2 Pet.2:20.
Backsliders are saved regardless. Jn.10:27-29.

Yes, it’s bad news “if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them” (2 Pet 2:20; read the entire chapter for context and completeness). John 10:27-29 doesn’t teach what it supposedly teaches, according to the above. Rather, it asserts that the elect and predestines; the one who will make it to heaven (whom Jesus knows about in His omniscience) will never be lost. It’s simply saying a=a (“those who are saved in the end are saved” or “the elect are saved” or “the predestined are saved”).

55) Forgive seventy times seven. Mt.18:22.
Forgiveness is not possible for renewed sin. Heb.6:4-6.

Yes, human beings must always be willing to forgive: to have that spirit, because all of us have been forgiven by God. But God is not obliged to forgive forever. He provides enough grace for anyone who chooses, to be saved, but if they reject it, that’s their choice, and they make forgiveness impossible to grant, because it must be preceded by acceptance and repentance. That’s what Hebrews 6 addresses: those who have received this grace and who were on the road to salvation, but then rejected it. It’s then impossible, as long as they continue rebelling and rejecting God and His grace. Many of these are simply variations on a single theme. I keep explaining the biblical theology of salvation (soteriology) over and over.

56) Divorce, except for unfaithfulness, is wrong. Mt.5:32.
Divorce for any reason is wrong. Mk.10:11,12.

See my papers:

Biblical Evidence for the Prohibition of Divorce [2004]

Dialogue on the Matthew 19:19 Exception Clause & Divorce [11-10-08]

Biblical Evidence for Annulments [2002]

Annulment is Not “Catholic Divorce” [11-17-15]

57) Jesus approved of destroying enemies. Lk.19:27.
Jesus said to love your enemies. Mt.5:44.

Luke 19:27 is a parable about the final judgment (which is God’s sole prerogative). As such it has nothing directly to do with how we should approach enemies in this life, with a loving and forgiving spirit. Apples and oranges . . .

58) God resides in heaven. Mt.5:45; Mt.6:9; Mt.7:21.
Angels reside in heaven. Mk.13:32.
Jesus is with God in heaven. Acts 7:55,56
Believers go to heaven. 1 Pet.1:3,4.
Heaven will pass away. Mt.24:35; Mk.13:31; Lk.21:33.

Matthew 24:35  refers to the present “heaven and earth” coming to an end (“heaven” there meaning the skies or the universe). Mark 13:31 and Luke 21:33 report the same saying. But there will be a new heaven and a new earth:

Revelation 21:1-2 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. [2] And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband;

The spiritual heaven and hell both last indefinitely; forever (Mt 25:46).

59) Pray that you don’t enter temptation. Mt.26:41.
Temptation is a joy. Jms.1:2.

James 1:2 refers not to temptation (hence, this is “apples and oranges” again), but to “trials”. The “joy” that comes through trials is spelled out: “the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing” (James 1:3-4). This “testing” need not be a temptation at all. I could have a rock fall on my head from an avalanche. That would be a “test” of my faith: the more severe the effects are, but it wasn’t a temptation. Temptation is allowing ourselves to fall into being led astray by sexual immorality (lust), greed, gluttony, etc. It proceeds from the inside: in our soul.

The Bible never teaches that temptation is a joy. That’s determined by a search of both words together.

60) God leads you into temptation. Mt.6:13.
God tempts no one. Jms.1:13.

This is another understandable, “respectable” objection. James 1:13 is literally true. The difficulty is interpreting Matthew 6:13, which seems to contradict it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, in commenting on this clause:

CCC 2846 This petition goes to the root of the preceding one, for our sins result from our consenting to temptation; we therefore ask our Father not to “lead” us into temptation. It is difficult to translate the Greek verb used by a single English word: the Greek means both “do not allow us to enter into temptation” and “do not let us yield to temptation.”

“Lead us not into temptation” can be understood as a poetic, rhetorical way of expressing the notion: “keep us from temptation” or “we know (in faith) that you won’t lead us into temptation.” Hence, lovers will say to each other, “don’t break my heart”: which usually means, literally, “I believe you won’t break my heart like those others have.” In other words, the literal “won’t” is changed to the rhetorical, more emotional, “don’t.” Instead of saying, “please do this [good thing]” we change it to requesting the person to “please don’t do [the opposite bad thing]”. The Old Testament (appropriately, in the poetic Psalms) offers some analogical parallels:

Psalm 38:21 Do not forsake me, O LORD! . . .

Psalm 40:11 Do not thou, O LORD, withhold thy mercy from me, let thy steadfast love and thy faithfulness ever preserve me! [both senses in one verse]

Psalm 44:23 . . . Do not cast us off for ever!

Psalm 70:5 . . . Thou art my help and my deliverer; O LORD, do not tarry! [again, both senses in one verse]

Psalm 138:8 The LORD will fulfil his purpose for me; thy steadfast love, O LORD, endures for ever. Do not forsake the work of thy hands. [third example of both senses in one verse]

Psalm 140:8 Grant not, O LORD, the desires of the wicked; do not further his evil plot!

The Psalms addressed God just as the Lord’s Prayer / “Our Father” does.

61) Take no thought for tomorrow. God will take care of you. Mt.6:25-34; Lk.12:22-31.
A man who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel. 1 Tim.5:8.

Matthew 6:25-34 (Luke as a parallel passage) is about anxiety, and how God provides our basic needs, and it’s very good, practical advice: especially “Let the day’s own trouble be sufficient for the day” (Mt 6:34). In other words: “we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it” or “one day at a time.” We can’t worry about all the “what ifs”. That will drive us crazy. It’s not a denial that we should be responsible in providing a living for ourselves and our families. “Don’t worry” is not the same thought as “don’t provide” or “don’t work and be a lazy bum.”

So it’s apples and oranges, as so many of these are. They have nothing to do with each other. It has to be the same subject matter to possibly be a contradiction. The first two passages simply don’t disagree with the third. St. Paul is quite firm about sloth and able-bodied people not working:

2 Thessalonians 3:6-12 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. [7] For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you, [8] we did not eat any one’s bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you. [9] It was not because we have not that right, but to give you in our conduct an example to imitate. [10] For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: If any one will not work, let him not eat. [11] For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work. [12] Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work in quietness and to earn their own living.

62) Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Mt.7:21.
Only those whom the Lord chooses will be saved. Acts 2:39.

This is a variation of #49, which I answered last time.

63) We are justified by works and not by faith. Mt.7:21; Rom.2:6,13; Jms.2:24.
We are justified by faith and not by works. Jn.3:16; Rom.3:27; Eph.2:8,9.; Gal.2:16.

Variation of #51 above; already answered. An error repeated doesn’t become any less false.

64) Do not take sandals (shoes) or staves. Mt.10:10.
Take only sandals (shoes) and staves. Mk.6:8,9.

Eric Lyons of Apologetics Press, offers a good reply:

The differences between Matthew and Mark are explained easily when one acknowledges that the writers used different Greek verbs to express different meanings. The word “provide” (NKJV) in Matthew 10:9 [“take” in RSV] is translated from the Greek ktesthe, which is derived from ktaomai. According to Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, in their Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, this verb means “to gain possession of, procure for oneself, acquire, get” (p. 572). Based upon these definitions, the New American Standard Version used the English verb “acquire” in Matthew 10:9 (“Do not acquire….”), instead of “provide” (as in the NKJV). Thus, according to Matthew, Jesus is saying (in essence): “Go as you are and do not take the time to go procure for yourself anything in addition to what you already have.” As Mark indicated, the apostles were to “take” (airo) what they had, and go. The apostles were not to waste precious time gathering supplies (extra apparel, staffs, shoes, etc.) or making preparations for their trip, but instead were instructed to trust in God’s providence for additional needs. Jesus did not mean for the apostles to discard the staffs and sandals they already had; rather, they were not to go and acquire more. (“Take It or Leave It”, 26 May 2004)

Several Bible translations reflect this meaning for Matthew 10:9 and ktesthe more clearly:

CSB  Don’t acquire gold, silver, or copper for your money-belts.
DLNT  Do not acquire gold nor silver nor copper [money] for your [money] belts—
ESV Acquire no gold or silver or copper for your belts,
LEB Do not procure gold or silver or copper for your belts.
NIRV Do not get any gold, silver or copper to take with you in your belts.
NIV Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts—
*
Wuest Do not begin to acquire . . .
Kleist & Lilly Do not procure . . .

A. T. Robertson’s standard reference work Word Pictures in the New Testament, concurs:

It is not, “Do not possess” or “own,” but “do not acquire” or “procure” for yourselves, indirect middle aorist subjunctive. Gold, silver, brass (copper) in a descending scale (nor even bronze).

65) Jesus said that in him there was peace. Jn.16:33.
Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace. Mt.10:34; Lk.12:51.

John 16:33 refers to personal / soul level peace and fulfillment (“in me you may have peace”). He makes the meaning absolutely clear in the following similar passage:

Matthew 11:28-29 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. [29] Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

The other passages, in contrast, have to do with those in one’s family not liking the fact that one is a follower of Jesus; thereby bringing about division, which Jesus expressed with Hebraic hyperbolic exaggeration as “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Mt 10:34). In Luke 12:51, Jesus uses the literal description, “division.” It’s a social dynamic, as opposed to individual and personal. Another way of expressing the same dynamic was to say (with exaggeration of degree): “you will be hated by all for my name’s sake” (Mt 10:22).  Apples and oranges . . .

66) Jesus said that John the Baptist was a prophet and Elijah. Mt.11:9; Mt.17:12,13.
John said that he was not a prophet nor was he Elijah. Jn.1:21.

The passages in Matthew are in the sense of prototype: John the Baptist was a type of Elijah; the last prophet, who had the same role as he did: to cause Israel to repent. Luke 1:17 makes this clear. An angel says about John: “he will go before him in the spirit and power of Eli’jah”. The repeated New Testament use of “son of David” for Jesus is an instance of the same thing, because David was a prototype of the Messiah. Jeremiah proclaimed, some 400 years after David’s death: “But they shall serve the LORD their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them” (Jer 30:9; cf. 33:15; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hos 3:5).

John the Baptist himself spoke literally in John 1:21, in denying that he was Elijah, returned from the dead. Since we have instances of metaphorical and literal, it’s no contradiction.

67) Jesus said that he was meek and lowly. Mt.11:29.
Jesus makes whips and drives the moneychangers out from the temple. Mt. 21:12; Mk.11:15,16; Jn.2:15.

Jesus was meek and lowly and humble. It doesn’t follow, however, that He can never express righteous indignation. The most “meek and mild” father will become a roaring lion if someone tries to kidnap his son or daughter. And this is entirely proper. Likewise, if a judge gives a life sentence to a proven-guilty murderer, we don’t say that the judge failed to be personally “meek and mild.” He was doing his duty and protecting society.

Likewise, Jesus (Who was God) was disgusted that money-grubbing merchants had turned the temple into “a den of robbers” (Mt 21:13). It was a time for righteous indignation and God’s wrath, and Jesus acted accordingly. For more details as to what exactly these merchants were doing, that made Jesus so rightfully angry, see my paper, David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #10: Chapter 11 (Two Donkeys? / Fig Tree / Moneychangers) [8-20-19]. Dr. David Madison is also one who loves to try to pick apart the Bible. He asked: “What provoked Jesus to do this? Why was he upset about money-changers and dove-sellers?” I provided a thorough answer in this article of mine.  I think what these moneychangers were doing would disgust anyone who has a caring, compassionate concern for the poor being treated fairly and not being taken advantage of for monetary gain: and in a holy place at that.

68) Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees”. Lk.12:1.
Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees”. Mt.16:6,11.
Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod”. Mk.8:15.

Sure: they were all being hypocrites. It’s not a “contradiction” to point out that more than one person or group can act like hypocrites and bad influences. This is a rather silly example of a supposed biblical “problem.” Jesus used “leaven” as a synonym for hypocrisy. This isn’t speculation. He expressly said so:

Luke 12:1-3 In the meantime, when so many thousands of the multitude had gathered together that they trod upon one another, he began to say to his disciples first, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. [2] Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. [3] Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

For much more on this, see my paper, “Leaven” of the Pharisees: Hypocrisy or False Doctrine? (11-3-11).

69) Jesus founds his church on Peter. Mt.16:18.
Jesus calls Peter “Satan” and a hindrance. Mt.16:23.

To the first passage: yes He did. The second is about something different. Being the leader of the Church doesn’t mean Peter is perfect at all times. In the second passage, Jesus was saying that He would “go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised” (16:21). Peter responded by saying, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you” (16:22).

Jesus then rebukes him, because his advice, if followed, would ruin God’s predetermined plan for how to save the human race: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men” (16:23). It was a graphic way of expressing the idea that Satan was speaking through Peter; unduly influencing him. It was a rebuke about this one thing: not a total character appraisal. Peter was quite well-intentioned, but ignorant about the fact (as all the disciples seemed to be at first) that Jesus had to die to redeem mankind. In any event, that has no bearing on his status as leader of the Church. That’s made very clear in Scripture. See my paper, 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy [1994].

70) The mother of James and John asks Jesus to favor her sons. Mt.20:20,21.
They ask for themselves. Mk.10:35-37.

Why can’t both ask the same thing? This is ridiculous and deserves no further attention.

71) Jesus responds that this favor is not his to give. Mt.20:23; Mk.10:40.
Jesus said that all authority is given to him. Mt.28:18; Jn.3:35.

In some things Jesus freely “defers” to the Father. It’s part of the voluntary limitation of becoming a man. The “classic” passage related to this is in Philippians:

Philippians 2:6-8 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, [7] but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. [8] And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

Jesus is both fully God and fully man (agree or disagree, or understand or not, this is Christian and biblical teaching). As a man, and the Son in the Holy Trinity, at times He submits to (or seems “lesser” than) God the Father. But in His Divine Nature He is every bit the equal of God the Father, and can and does say things like, “All that the Father has is mine” (Jn 16:15) or “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30) and this extraordinary utterance:

John 5:21-23 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. [22] The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, [23] that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

All of this backdrop explains the first two passages above. The second couplet expresses His equality with the Father in the Holy Trinity (“the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand”: Jn 3:35 / “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”: Mt 28:18). It’s not contradictory; it’s the Two Natures of Christ or what theologians call the Hypostatic Union.

72) Jesus heals two unnamed blind men. Mt.20:29,30.
Jesus heals one named blind man. Mk.10:46-52.

I tend to believe in an instance like this that there were two similar traditions in existence about one event (just as eyewitnesses in a court trial will differ on some details): one of them had one blind man and the other had two. But as far as contradictoriness goes, what we know about this incident doesn’t establish it. The Domain for Truth website provided some good insight on the nature of a logical contradiction:

  1. Formally the two claims “Only one blind man was healed near Jericho” and “Only two blind man was healed near Jericho” are contradictory.  There can’t be “only one blind man” while there’s “two blind men.”  But the next question is whether the Bible verses cited actually supply those two claims.
  2. Matthew 20:30 does mention two blind men.
  3. Both Mark 10:46 and Luke 18:35 mention one blind man.  But neither of those passages assert that there was “only one blind man.”  Thus the claim that there’s “Only one blind man was healed near Jericho” is not supported by the text. If it’s not there in the Scriptures one cannot claim there’s a Bible contradiction here.
  4. Mentioning “a man” is not the same thing as saying there’s “only one man.”  “A man” and “two men” are not contradictory; it is logically possible that “a man” would be from one of those “two men.”  Logically, “a man” is a subset of “two men” and hence are not contradictory. (“Bible Contradiction? How many blind men were healed near Jericho?”, 10-4-18)

73) Jesus healed all that were sick. Mt.8:16; Lk.4:40.
Jesus healed many that were sick – but not all. Mk.1:34.

All these accounts refer to the same incident, and so at first glance it seems contradictory. But several things need to be taken into consideration. Mark 1:34 records that “he healed many”. There could be several reasons for this qualification, but the most likely — in context –, is because of the sheer numbers of people: “And the whole city was gathered together about the door” (Mk 1:33). This was in Capernaum (Mk 1:21), which had an estimated population of 1,500 at that time.

So let’s say that 10% of all these people needed to be healed of something (which is 150), and let’s assume Jesus spent five minutes with each one. That would add up to 750 minutes or twelve-and-a-half hours. It’s not physically possible that He could heal all of them (because He generally touched those whom He healed). And it probably wasn’t just people in Capernaum, either. Mark 1:28 states that “at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee.” There were two towns fairly close by. Bethsaida was six miles away and Chorazin was only two miles.

Moreover, we know from the text: “at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons” (1:32). Let’s say that sundown was 6 PM. Jesus would be healing them until 6:30 the next morning and get no sleep at all. That’s just not feasible. And so He healed “many” but not all. Even if we say He spent two minutes with each person, that would take five hours. And there very well may have been more than 150. That was just a “generous” guess (that 10% of the whole town would need healing). And sunset could have been three hours later, too, depending on the season. This was the situation: described in all three accounts: lots of people, and after sunset.

In Matthew 8:16, where it says He “healed all who were sick” it depends on what one means by “all.” I say that because two verses later we learn that that “when Jesus saw great crowds around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side [of the Sea of Galilee]” (8:18). We can be quite sure that in this crowd of people that He deliberately avoided by crossing the sea, there would have been many more asking to be healed (since they observed healing taking place). So in a very real sense, He didn’t heal absolutely all in this instance. “All” is necessarily limited in scope. In fact, He healed all that asked and were able in a crowd to get to Him before He departed to the other side of the sea.

Luke 4:40 states: “he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them” but that, too, could simply have meant “all” until such time as He left and went across the sea (as in Matthew): which simply wasn’t mentioned. Luke implies that there were “never-ending” crowds, too, in noting that “reports of him went out into every place in the surrounding region” (4:37) and (the next day) “the people sought him and came to him, and would have kept him from leaving them” (4:42), so “every one” has to have a limit at some point. In effect, then, all three passages are saying the same thing: He healed as many as He possibly could (who were able to get access to Him) before having to leave. It’s not likely that Jesus healed “absolutely every person” in such a great crowd, in one evening before the usual bed-time.

Language always has to be understood in context. Even in Mark’s account, where it is more literal and says “he healed many” it states three verses later that His disciples told Him: “Every one is searching for you” (Mk 1:37): which is non-literal language. That has to have some limit, too. It obviously can’t mean “everyone in the whole country” (or world, for that matter). Therefore, it’s obviously exaggeration, meaning, “a great number; a lot.” We talk the same way today in saying things like, “everyone likes ice cream” or “everyone loves [so-and-so] . . .”, “everyone loves a good story”, etc.

74) The council asks Jesus if he is the Son of God. Lk.22:70. The high priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ, the Son of God. Mt.26:63.
The high priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ the Son of the Blessed. Mk.14:61.
The high priest asks Jesus about his disciples and his doctrine. Jn.18:19.

All of this could have happened; no problem. Different people ask the same question; individuals ask multiple question. How is it contradictory?

75) Jesus answers to the effect of “You said it, not me”. Mt.26:64; Lk.22:70.
Jesus answers definitely, “I am”. Mk.14:62.

When Jesus said, “You have said so” (Mt 26:64), it was the same thing as replying “yes” and He proves this by what he said next: “But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” That was a claim to be the Messiah, based on Daniel 7, which He applied to Himself (hence answering the question). This resulted in the high priest and others there accusing Him of blasphemy (26:65-66). So to claim that this scenario somehow “contradicts” the “I am” of Mark is absurd. Luke is the same, since Jesus cited Daniel 7 in that account, too (without saying, “I am”), and His enemies knew exactly what He meant, since they said: “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips” (Lk 22:71).

No “difficulty” or “problem” here, then! 75 out of 75 “contradictions” have now been resolved. I’m 39% done. The weak and unsubstantial, groundless nature of these arguments is manifest to one and all. Some took much more work than others (and it always takes much more ink to refute an error than to assert one), but ultimately I’ve had no trouble answering any or all of them so far. I have no reason to believe that the remaining ones will be any more difficult to solve. These sorts of thoroughly biased efforts to attack the Bible are equal parts unfair and unreasonable. In terms of intellectual argument they amount to desperate special pleading. Something has to account for them being relentlessly wrong. I would say that the main reason is that the Bible truly is inspired revelation; hence can withstand all that the skeptics bring to bear against it.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: mohamed hassan (2-22-21) [public domain / Pxhere.com]

***

Summary: A Bible skeptic has come up with 194 alleged biblical “contradictions” (usually recycled from old lists). I am systematically going through the list and refuting each one.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!