petra1000

Problem: The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 testify that Jesus was the “Son of David.” In fact, the book of Matthew begins with these words: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham” (1:1, emp. added). The New Testament is also abundantly clear that this Son of David is “the Christ” or “the Messiah.” When the Samaritan woman at the well said to Jesus, “‘I know that Messiah is coming’ (who is called Christ). ‘When He comes, He will tell us all things.’ Jesus said to her, ‘I who speak to you am He’” (John 4:25-26, emp. added). What’s more, just before Jesus’ crucifixion, when the Jewish high priest asked Him directly, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:61-62, emp. added). Thus, the New Testament clearly affirms that Jesus was both “Christ” and the “Son of David.” [NOTE: The term “Christ” is transliterated from the Greek term Christos, while “Messiah” is transliterated from the Hebrew/Aramaic term Meshiach. Both have as their meaning, “the anointed One.”]
Continue reading →

Problem: At the conclusion of Jesus’ parable of the wicked vinedressers, Jesus asked His audience, “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?” (Matthew 21:40). According to Matthew, Jesus’ hearers responded: “They said to Him, He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons” (Matthew 21:41). However, according to Mark and Luke, Jesus answered His own question, saying, “He will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others” (Luke 20:16; Mark 12:9). Luke then added: “And when they heard it they said, ‘Certainly not!’” (Luke 20:16). How is the Bible reader to understand these differing responses? Did Jesus answer His own question or did others? And how did those who reacted to Jesus’ teaching actually respond?
Continue reading →

Problem: When Jesus cursed the fig tree, did it whither immediately or the next day? John Bartlett Jr., AiG–U.S., examines this alleged contradiction.
Continue reading →

Problem: It is not uncommon for people who study the gospels to misconstrue matters of chronology that are contained within the four accounts. The fact of the matter is, the gospel writers never claimed to have recorded all of the events of Jesus’ life in the exact order in which they occurred. Unless an action or event is denoted by a specific marker (such as “the next day,” “ on the morrow,” “on the Sabbath,” etc.), there can be time gaps between the verses. One example of this is the account of the withered fig tree in Mark 11:12-14,20-21 and Matthew 21:18-20.
Continue reading →

Problem: One of the most popular alleged Bible discrepancies pertaining to chronology—and one that skeptics are fond of citing in any discussion on the inerrancy of Scripture—is whether or not Jesus cleansed the temple early in His ministry, or near the end. According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus cleansed the temple during the final week leading up to His death on the cross (Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46). John, however, places his record of the temple cleansing in chapter 2 of his gospel account, between Jesus’ first miracle (2:1-12) and His conversation with Nicodemus (3:1-21). How should John’s gospel account be understood in light of the other three writers placing the event near the end of Jesus’ ministry? Skeptics question, “Did Jesus enter the temple and drive out the money changers early in His ministry, or near the end?”
Continue reading →

Problem: Tim Chaffey, AiG–U.S., explains why John’s account of the temple cleansing must necessarily have been a different event from the one found in the Synoptic Gospels.Problem:
Continue reading →

Problem: The Gospel of John states that Jesus cleansed the temple early in His ministry, but the other Gospels place the temple-cleansing near the end of His ministry. Who is right?
Continue reading →

Problem: Critics note that Jesus chased out the money changers with “a scourge of cords.” Why was he so angry here?

Solution: The religious leaders were profiteering off of a poor culture. The historical background of this graft is important in understanding Jesus’ anger:
Continue reading →

Problem: Matthew, Mark, and Luke all indicate that prior to Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem during the final week of His life, He instructed two of His disciples, saying, “Go…find a colt…and bring it here” (Luke 19:30; Matthew 21:2; Mark 11:2). The disciples then “brought the colt to Jesus and threw their clothes on it, and He sat on it” (11:7; cf. Matthew 21:7; Luke 19:35). Some wonder how these details (as recorded by synoptic gospel writers) match up with John’s gospel account. According to John, “Jesus, when He had found a young donkey, sat on it” (12:14, emp. added). The question is, did Jesus or His disciples find the donkey? [NOTE: For a discussion regarding the disciples bringing back two donkeys, see Lyons, 2004).]
Continue reading →

Problem: Although most Christians would rather not concern themselves with some of the more minute details of Jesus’ life reported in the New Testament, when challenged to defend the inerrancy of The Book that reports the beautiful story of Jesus, there are times when such details require our attention. Such is the case with Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem during the final week of His life. People who wear the name of Christ enjoy reading of the crowd’s cries of “Hosanna!,” and meditating upon the fact that Jesus went to Jerusalem to bring salvation to the world. Skeptics, on the other hand, read of this event and cry, “Contradiction!” Allegedly, Matthew misunderstood Zechariah’s prophecy, and thus contradicted what Mark, Luke, and John wrote regarding Jesus’ final entry into Jerusalem (see van den Heuvel, 2003). Matthew recorded the following:
Continue reading →

Problem: Did Jesus sin by telling the disciples to take a donkey in Matt. 21:1-3, Mark 11:2-3; Luke 19:30–32?  There are two main reasons why He did not. First, since Jesus is God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:8), the Scriptures about God owning everything applies to Him. Therefore, he could not steal because, ultimately, the donkey and colt belonged to Him. Please consider the following verses.
Continue reading →

Problem: Numerous passages of Scripture teach—either explicitly or implicitly—about the sinfulness of thievery. One of the Ten Commandments that God gave to Israel was: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15). In the book of Leviticus, one can read where “the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them… You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another…. You shall not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him’ ” (19:1-2,11,13). If a thief was found breaking into a house and was struck so that he died, the old law stated that there would be “no guilt for his bloodshed” (Exodus 22:2). Under the new covenant, the apostle Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus, saying, “Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need” (4:28). And to the Christians at Corinth, Paul wrote that thieves “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Thus, God obviously considers stealing to be a transgression of His law.
Continue reading →

Problem: The case of the healing of the blind men near Jericho (recorded in Matthew 20:29-34, Mark 10:46-52, and Luke 18:35-43) has been highly criticized by skeptics through the years. While both Mark and Luke mention the healing of only one blind man, Matthew records the healing of two men as Christ made His way to Jerusalem for the final Passover. Also, Matthew and Mark indicate that the blind men were healed as Jesus was leaving Jericho whereas Luke suggests that a blind man was healed as the Lord came near to the city. Allegedly, these differences surrounding Jesus’ miracle in the city of Jericho prove the fallacy of Bible writers.
Continue reading →

Problem: Matthew says that Christ healed two men, but Mark refers to only one man being healed (10:46). This appears to be a clear contradiction.
Continue reading →