Brainwash: A Glimpse on Bible Verses’ Alleged Contradictions (Part 6)

In here, series on contradictions in the New Testament with refutations for 194 allegedly contradictory statements from the writings of the Gospels, Acts and the letters of St. Paul are presented, to enlighten against total oblivion of the most basic ideas of Christian eschatology and theology. A failure to recognize hyperbole and a persistence on taking every statement in the most absolute narrowest, and most literal sense without any effort to identify the fine distinction involved in real human speech could be perceived - a failure to regard the Scriptures the way one approaches any other literature.[3]

There is a difference between saying, "Nero is a proud and arrogant ruler" and "St. Elizabeth Ann Seton is proud of her sisters for all their hard work." There is fine distinction in the word proud, so St. Paul being proud of the Church of Corinth is not a "contradiction" to Jesus’ warnings against arrogance. These are not contradictions; most of them are just plain failures to understand language, and purposeful failure at this is willed ignorance than pure ignorance. Some take these narratives willfully not as a sort of education but to discredit Christianity as hypocritical institution.

Some alleged contradictions on the place of the Old Testament in relation to the New, something that St. Paul himself takes great pains to explain and that Christian theologians dwell on for centuries will be taken up here. Nevertheless, a challenge or a difficulty is not a contradiction.

Now, let sit back and relax for more rediscoveries:

Alleged Contradiction No. 129
The coming of the kingdom will be accompanied by signs and miracles. (Matthew 24:29-33; Mark13:24-29)	It will not be accompanied by signs and miracles since it occurs from within. (Luke 17:20-21)
Interpretation:
In the first two passages, Jesus refers to the definitive establishment of God's eternal reign at the end of time, the eschaton, while in Luke, Christ refers to the kingdom in seed form, that which is planted in the heart of the believer by faith and matures. The latter speaks of the kingdom as the mustard seed planted within, while former speaks of the kingdom as a fully matured tree in its definitive and final state.

Alleged Contradiction No. 130
The kingdom was placed in order from the beginning. (Matthew 25:34)	Jesus says that He is going to go and prepare the kingdom. John14:2-3)
Interpretation:
God foreknew and foreordained the kingdom’s establishment (compare with Romans 8:29) therefore it is prepared from the beginning but the plan foreordained by God was not brought to fulfillment until done so by Jesus’ Resurrection and Ascension. This could be correlated to building a house in which the architect sketches its design to the last detail before the first brick is laid and built. Equally, the house was "prepared from the beginning" as it was designed before it was actually built. Nonetheless, the builder had to "go and prepare" the house that the architect had ordained "from the beginning."

Alleged Contradiction No. 131
Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. (Mark 3:29)	All sins are forgivable. (Acts 13:39; Colossians 2:13; 1 John1:9)
Interpretation:
God forgives any sin that is sincerely repented and a heart with eagerness to be forgiven.  Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a negative response to repent, thus, a frustration of the work of the Spirit. The apparent solution is that God forgives any sin which is atoned of, but He does not forgive sins which humans refuse to repent. Rejecting of repentance is blaspheming of the Holy Spirit.

Alleged Contradiction No. 132
The ascension occurs when the disciples are seated together at a table. (Mark16:14-19)	It occurs outdoors at Bethany. (Luke 24:50-51)	It takes place outdoors at Mt. Olives. (Acts 1:9-12)
Interpretation:
Jesus was taken into heaven from the Mount of Olives.  Mark 16:19 never says Jesus ascended while the disciples were seated together at a table, only that Jesus ascended "after He had spoken to them." As taken up elsewhere, “after” does not necessarily mean immediately after. If one says that she/he spends Christmas dinner with her/his family in the Philippines. After that, she/he takes flight to Singapore", does not in any way mean that she/he steps on to an airplane immediately after rising from dinner, or the dinner table is the location from whence the concerned took flight. With regards to Bethany, it is a village located on the slopes of the Mount of Olives. It is the same place. Luke uses the name of the town, while Acts employ the name of the mountain, but they are one and the same location.

Alleged Contradiction No. 133
The Holy Spirit was with John from before he was born. (Luke1:15,41)	The Holy Spirit was with Elizabeth before John’s birth. (Luke1:41)
The Holy Spirit was with Zechariah. (Luke1:67)	The Holy Spirit was with Simeon. (Luke 2:25)
The Holy Spirit is obtained by asking. (Luke11:13)	The Holy Spirit did not come into the world until after Jesus had departed. (John 7:39; John16:7; Acts 1:3-8)
Interpretation:
God is Omnipresent therefore the Holy Spirit can be with many people simultaneously, so the first four clauses are not contradictory.  When  Jesus  says that the Holy Spirit can be asked for in Luke 11:13 is not to say that asking is the only way to receive the Spirit, as clearly the Holy Spirit also sometimes "falls" or "comes upon" people in the Bible without their having asked (compare with Judges 14:6, 1 Samuel 11:6, Acts 10:44). Not everyone receives the Spirit equally; God may grant more or less "portions" of the Spirit to different people (compare with 2 Kings 2:9, Malachi 2:15, 1 John 4:13). These "provisions" of the Spirit are aimed at empowering God's people to perform particular missions or charisms and were bestowed upon even before Jesus’ advent. In a specific instance like that of Samson or Saul, these "came upon" people when God wanted them to work on a mission like miracles or, or utter prophetically  in the case of Elizabeth, but these faded away as soon as the mission was fulfilled. This must be discerned differently with the sending of the Holy Spirit that only occurred after Jesus’ Ascension, beginning on the day of Pentecost, which was a "giving" of a different order. On Pentecost, Jesus gave the Spirit to abide with the Church forever as its very "soul" and to indwell believers in an indwelling that was perpetual through their union with the Church as perfected in the Sacrament of Confirmation. This is specifically different from the manifestations of the Spirit before Pentecost. It is in reference to this total outpouring that Jesus said He gives His Spirit "without measure" (John 3:34).

Alleged Contradiction No. 134
Occasionally God is responsible for non-belief. (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)	Occasionally Jesus is responsible for non-belief. (Mark 4:11-12)	The devil causes non-belief. (Luke 8:12)
Interpretation:
God either wills all things positively or else allows the temptation of the devil  as a means of testing humans but neither permits the temptations to go so far that cannot be resisted (compare with 1 Corinthians 10:13). Considering that faith is both an intellectual act and an act of the will, it is by human’s own will if anyone concedes to a temptation to unbelief. Once this occurs, God hands them over to their punishment which is nothing other than sticking in the state of skepticism amid all the negative consequences.  The devil who wills to pull human away from God, can be the instrument by which God inflicts His just retributions. Thus, St. Paul, when excommunicating a man from the Church, calls it "handing him over to Satan" (compare with. 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:20). Hence, because of hardness of human’s heart, God allows them to fall into unbelief or hands them over to Satan as Paul says, who is the instrumental cause of unbelief. This is a great mystery, bound up with questions about freedom and grace, but at any rate, it is a theological difficulty than a contradiction.

Alleged Contradiction No. 135
Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer. (1 John 3:15)	Anyone who claims that he loves God but hates his brother is a liar. (1 John 4:20)	Anyone cannot be a disciple of Jesus unless he hates his brother. (Luke14:26)
Interpretation:
St. John employing the word "hate" in his epistles is totally different from Jesus’ sense of using it. The Lord uses a hyperbole, a literary exaggeration in creating a point, which is common in Aramaic.  For example, when Jesus counsels believers to pluck eyes and cut off hands rather than sin, the Lord uses here a hyperbole to emphasize that one's relationship with God must be a priority over human relationships and that, if necessary, one must be willing to leave home and family for the sake of the kingdom. He does not literally direct anyone to hate her/his family members.

        

Alleged Contradiction No. 136
Believers do not come into judgment. (John 5:24)	All people come into judgment. (Matthew12:36; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 9:27; 1 Peter 1:17; Jude 14,15; Revelations 20:12-13)
Interpretation:
The first passage refers to being condemned. Everybody is judged and tried by God but believers are not condemned.  Everybody faces judgment but believers are set free.

Alleged Contradiction No. 137
Jesus says that, if He bears witness to Himself, His testimony is true. (John 8:14)	Jesus says that, if He bears witness to Himself, His testimony is not true. (John 5:31)
Interpretation:
This is a misquotation. Jesus never says that if He bears witness to Himself His testimony is true,” rather, “Although I give testimony of Myself, My testimony is true.” He stresses here that His testimony is not true because He gives it of Himself, but instead, because He is the Son of God, His testimony is true in spite of Him giving it of Himself. The next passage tells about Jesus’ quoting a precept of the Mosaic Law, which prohibits a man to testify on his own behalf. Jesus says, "According to the Mosaic Law, if I bear witness to myself, my witness is not true. So I appeal to the testimony of John the Baptist," making His case within the Mosaic Law’s parameters that prohibits a man to bear witness to himself because men are untrustworthy.  In John 8, however, Jesus mentions that even if He does go outside the bounds of the Mosaic Law and testify on His own behalf, His declaration is reliable, as He is above moral suspicion. This is not a contradiction but hypothesizing two different potential courses of action under two standards, one abiding by the Mosaic Law, and the other without it. Simply put, Jesus says, that if they want testimony of Him then that’s fine as He bears witness to Himself. However, if that's not excellent enough in   observance of the Mosaic Law, then there are other witnesses too.

Alleged Contradiction No. 138
Human can choose whether or not to believe. (John 5:38-47)	Only God chooses who will believe. (John 6:44)
Interpretation:
This is not a contradiction but a theological problem narrating about the relationship between God's foreknowledge and man's free will. Faith is a gift. No one knows the impenetrable designs of God's providence, why He offers the gift of faith to different people in different instances. But when the gift of faith is offered, man is duty-bound to respond to the promptings of grace. God calls upon; human must be responsive. God and man, grace and will when incorporated, play a role in the act of faith.

        

Alleged Contradiction No. 139
Jesus’ followers would not be lost. (John 10:27-29)	Some of Jesus’ followers would be lost. (1 Timothy4:1)
Interpretation:
No followers will be lost who continues to abide in Christ (John 10:29, 15:7) but a follower who abandons Him and separates himself from God's grace without repentance will surely be lost. The ones mentioned in 1Timothy 4 “who are lost” are specifically brought up as those who "listen to spirits of error and doctrines of devils" - they who have forsaken Jesus. In summary, all followers of Jesus will be saved who persevere unto the end, which is what Jesus Himself teaches as well (compare with Matt. 24:13).

Alleged Contradiction No. 140
Jesus is the ruling Prince of this earth. (Revelation 1:5)	The prince of the earth will be evicted. (John12:31)
Interpretation:
This is a simple failure to read the Scriptures in context. Jesus is the rightful Prince of the earth, whose place was usurped by Satan. Jesus throws Satan the impostor and takes His rightful place as Prince of the World.

Alleged Contradiction No. 141
Jesus says that all men will be saved. (John 3:17)	Only 144,000 virgin men will be saved. Revelations 14:1-4)
Interpretation:
The first passage neither says that all men will be saved but rather “God sent His son to save the world, not condemn it,” nor Revelation 14:1-4 says/suggests that only 144,000 virgin men will be saved but instead it does say that St. John saw 144,000 virgin men standing with Jesus on Mount Zion and that these men had been redeemed. It also calls them "first fruits."

Alleged Contradiction No. 142
God wants all men to be saved. (1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9)	God does not want all men to be saved. (John12:40)
Interpretation:
God wills all men to be saved, but on His terms, those who submit themselves to Him.  God loves His children.  He will give all His children a dessert – if they eat their dinner.  Everybody I suppose craves for a dessert but if health problems suggest not to take a dessert then one should go back first to the basic, by becoming a child again in obedience,  who enjoys a dessert because he/she has the humility and openness to obey the dos and don’ts.

Alleged Contradiction No. 143
Peter asks Jesus where He is going. (John13:36)	Thomas asks Jesus where He is going. (John14:5)	Jesus says that no one asks where He is going. (John16:5)
Interpretation:
Peter asks Jesus where He is going.  The Lord responds a mysterious answer so Thomas asks the question again.  Concerning Jesus' last comment that, “yet none of you ask me where I am going,” Peter and Thomas know Jesus is going away, but they are asking where He is going in a worldly sense; they did not realize that what the Lord really meant is, He is going to die. Both men ask where Jesus is going, but neither of them asks where He is really going, because they could not comprehend what Jesus meant by "returning to the Father," which is comparable to Acts 1, where Jesus promises the advent of the kingdom. The disciples think that He means a worldly, political kingdom and ask as to whether the political kingdom of Israel would be re-established. They ask about the advent of the kingdom, but not about the “real coming of the kingdom,” because Jesus meant "kingdom" in a different sense compared to their literal comprehension. In the same way, since Jesus had not yet died and ascended, the disciples understood "going away" in a different sense than what Jesus really meant about it. Likewise, a similarity also occurs in John 11 when Jesus says Lazarus is "asleep" and in Matthew 16 where the disciples understand the word "leaven" carnally while Jesus means it allegorically. It corroborates nothing, but that the disciples were real, imperfect human beings who were capable of occasional misunderstanding the Lord.

Alleged Contradiction No. 144
Jesus loses only one disciple. (John17:12)	Jesus loses no disciples. John18:9)
Interpretation:
In the first passage, Jesus obviously means Judas to be the exception. But because this exception was foreknown "that the Scriptures might be fulfilled", nothing has truly been lost. This could be correlated to a man who is given of €12 but knows ahead of time that €1 will have to be used up and add it into his budget, then towards the end he loses the €1, nothing has really been lost in the sense that he is exact on budget. Nothing unexpected has happened. At the end of the day, when the man gives an account of his money, he can truly say that he has not lost any of the money that he received except the €1 that they have integrated in the budget, which is not counted as a true loss as this was pre-planned.

Alleged Contradiction No. 145
Jesus came into the world to bear witness to the truth. (John18:37)	The truth has always been evident. (Romans1:18-20)
Interpretation:
The truth can be stated more than once or in more than one method. The truth taken in Romans 1 is the truth that God exists and has created the world. The truth that Jesus came to bear witness that He is the Son of God and that no one will be saved except through Him. The first truth can be fathomed from reason alone, but the other from divine revelation only. These are both aspects of the truth speaking about two different things.

Alleged Contradiction No. 146
During His first resurrection appearance, Jesus gives His disciples the Holy Spirit. (John 20:22)	The Holy Spirit is given to the disciples after His ascension. (Acts 1:3-8)
Interpretation:
The first passage, the giving of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles was a special outpouring to them alone which empowered them to forgive sins and confer the other sacraments; it is the source of Apostolic Succession and the sacrament of Holy Orders. On the other hand, it was an occasion when the Spirit was given to indwell the Church as a whole. The first was meant for the Apostolic College alone granting them sacramental powers while the other was to the Church as a whole.

Alleged Contradiction No. 147
The world could not contain all that could be written of Jesus. (John 21:25)	All are written. (Acts.1:1)
Interpretation:
This only shows of illogical literalism and no interest in actually understanding the Scriptures but only launching weak objections.     As if St. Luke's words "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach," means that every single thing Jesus Christ ever said or accounted is ridiculous. This would mean He literally did not utter a single word until He was 12, considering that it is the first time the Gospels account Jesus speaking. If Julius Caesar were to say that he has written about all the things he did in Gaul no one would be so ridiculous in thinking that he meant every single last little deed he did in Gaul was accounted.

Alleged Contradiction No. 148
Obey the laws of men for it is the will of God. (1 Peter 2:13-15)	The disciples disobey the council. (Acts 5:40-42)
Obey God, not men. (Acts 5:29)	Obey men. It is God’s will. (Romans13:1-4; 1 Peter 2:13-15)
Interpretation:
Obedience on God manifests in the obedience to legitimate authorities. Since God is a higher authority than human law, human laws may be disobeyed if they oppose God's law. The disciples disobey the council because it opposes Jesus’ law to preach to all men. Christians abide all laws insofar as they are in harmony with God's law, but if it’s otherwise, God's precepts must be complied with above human law.

Alleged Contradiction No. 149
God hates Esau and loves Jacob even before they were born. (Romans 9:10-13)	God shows no partiality and treats all alike. (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11)
Interpretation:
The last two passages (Acts 10:34 and Romans 2:11) speak about who can enter the Christian Church and state that any person can become a Christian, which is a different issue from the other (Romans 9). The latter quotes Malachi 1, which does not assert that God hates Esau before he was born. Malachi 1:2-4 affirms that though Esau was also born of the faithful seed, as was Jacob, God blesses Jacob's land but makes Esau's land desolate. All that was predetermined before birth was that "the older shall serve the younger" (Romans 9:12). The word 'Esau' in "Esau I have hated" refers to the land of Esau (Edom, that is), "I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness." (Malachi 1:3).  This refers to a land than a person. Esau/Edom is a place name, just like Jacob is used as a place name.

Alleged Contradiction No. 150
Anyone who sins without the law will perish without the law. (Romans 2:12)	Where there is no law there is no sin or transgression. (Romans 4:15)
Interpretation:
Anyone who commits sins, whether there is or no law will still be judged for every commission, as Romans 2:12 says. The last passage refers not to every sin but to those specific transgressions which occur from violation of the Levitical law, like failure to be circumcised or eating forbidden foods. This is clarified in the previous discussion in Romans 4:1-12 about Abraham and circumcision. The Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking "the Law", by which they meant the Levitical law. St. Paul's point in Romans 4 is that without the Law, these sorts of transgressions would not exist. In Romans 2, he establishes that there is a natural law which is universally binding, prior to the Levitical law. The line of reasoning which he establishes in Rom. 2 is actually setting the stage for the argument in Romans 4.

Alleged Contradiction No. 151
Achievers/doers of the law will be justified. (Romans 2:13)	Achievers/doers of the law will not be justified. (Romans 3:20; Galatians 3:11)
Interpretation:
The extent that anyone is justified under the Law is brought by faith that is embedded in any act of worship acted under the dictates of the Law. This is what it means to be a genuine "doer/achiever of the Law." Those who were justified under the Law were so by an implicit faith in Christ. However, the Law regarded as isolated from faith (law understood merely as a series of rules and external precepts), does not have power in itself to justify anyone.

Alleged Contradiction No. 152
The law does not have dominion. (Romans 6:14)	The law has dominion. (Romans 7:1)
Interpretation:
The former speaks of those who are still under the Law, while the latter talks about those who have been liberated from the teaching of the Law by grace.

Alleged Contradiction No. 153
The law was the result of sin. (Galatians 3:19)	Sin is the result of breaking the law. (1 John 3:4)
Interpretation:
The latter does not does not say that sin is the result of breaking the law but “everyone who sins is a lawbreaker.”  The former tells that it is because of original sin that God gives the Law.

Alleged Contradiction No. 154
Those of “God” cannot sin. (1 John 3:9)	Those of “God” can sin. (1 John 1:7 8)
Interpretation:
The former passage refers to abiding in a state of mortal sin while the latter passage refers to the fact that nobody is sinless even among Christians.  The implication is that even Christians fall into sin occasionally they cannot claim to be a follower of God while habitually living in unrepentant mortal sin.

Alleged Contradiction No. 155
The anointing of Jesus teaches right from wrong. (1 John 2:27)	The law written on the heart and conscience teaches right from wrong. (Romans 2:15)
Interpretation:
The law inscribed in the heart is the first teacher of right from wrong. This moral sense is enlightened, elevated, and sharpened by the anointing of Christ in the Holy Spirit.

Alleged Contradiction  No. 156
Abraham was justified by faith. (Hebrews11:8)	Abraham was justified by works. (James 2:21)	Abraham was not justified by works. (Romans 4:2)
Interpretation:
The first narrative is in the famous "Heroes of Faith" chapter of Hebrews where various Old Testament characters are eulogized for their faithfulness. It does not say Abraham was justified by faith but merely says that his actions were stimulated by faith: "By faith he that is called Abraham, obeyed to go out into a place which he was to receive for an inheritance." In the second and third narratives, St. Paul and St. James use the phrase "works" differently. The former, preaching to Jews about the Christian's freedom from the Mosaic Law, refers to "works of the Law", which indicate such Jewish rituals like circumcision, the dietary laws, etc. He rightly says Abraham was not justified by these things, since he existed before the giving of the Law (compare with Galatians 3:17). The latter, St. James, refers to the law in the sense of the moral law. IF we are referring to the moral law, then certainly Abraham was justified by the law, because obedience and faithfulness to God are two precepts of the moral law engraved in the heart of every man. This is the foundation of the virtue of religion (Catechism of the Catholic Church CCC 1807).

Alleged Contradiction No. 157
It is not good to eat or drink anything that might cause your brother to stumble or be offended. (Romans14:21)	Let no one pass judgment on you in matters of food or drink. (Colossians 2:16)
Interpretation:
Jesus teaches the New Law which has done away with the Jewish dietary law, so there are no longer any foods that are inherently good or bad for Christians to eat (Matthew 15:11). In this sense, no one can pass judgment to any Christian on his choice of meals or drink as we are not under the dietary law. That's not to say one cannot be guilty of sinning through food and drink in other senses; in Romans 14, St. Paul gives the example of scandalizing a weaker brother through one's choice of food. Thus, while no food is in itself bad, everybody should avoid scandalizing others through our food if we’re aware that it could offend them. Others point to Acts 15:20 saying that Christians should eat no strangled animals and no blood. There is neither formal prohibition in the Catholic Church concerning these foods nor transgressing against the Sacred Scripture. The pronouncement made at this Council was not a doctrine, but rather a discipline as implied in the “pollution of idols” - strangled foods and blood were often part of pagan ceremonies. Moreover, the Jewish converts to Christianity had lived for years and years without eating these foods and so found them particularly stomach-churning. The Council of Jerusalem was trying to find to incorporate two dissimilar halves of the Christian world – the Gentiles and the Jews. By instituting the discipline that food which the Jewish converts found unpleasant should not be eaten within these mixed communities, the Church was ascertaining that there would be no cause of division. Once these concerns is inexistent, when the proportion of Jewish converts dropped, or in areas where there were very few Jews to begin with and most converts were Gentiles (such as the Greek churches) the Church lifted these restrictions. Saint Paul (! Corinthians 10) speaks about acceptance to eat the flesh of animals sacrificed to idols, warning the Corinthians to only be concerned about causing scandal, rather than any sin or wrongdoing which might be attached to eating the food itself. This implies that the decision of the Council of Jerusalem to avoid certain foods was not doctrinal, but rather a discipline, as likewise narrated in Mark 7:19 that all foods were made clean.

 

pages
1	2	3	4	5	6	7