Problem: Recently, a gentleman contacted our offices questioning some of the events surrounding the burial of Christ. He specifically wanted to know about the likelihood of Joseph of Arimathea being able to roll “a great stone” (Matthew 27:60) against the entrance of the tomb. A person can understand how one man could transport the body of Jesus, wrap it in linen, and lay it in a tomb (27:59-60), but how could one man roll a “very large” (Mark 16:4) stone over the opening of the tomb of Jesus?
Continue reading →

Problem: Attempting to cite contradictions between the resurrection accounts of the four Gospels consistently has been an endeavor long on effort and Scripture-twisting but short on evidence and valid reasoning. For example, some Bible critics demand that the time of day at which the women visited the empty tomb of Jesus is different when the Gospel of John is compared with the other three accounts. Please read for yourself the four different accounts that follow (emphasis has been added to underscore the time of day under discussion).
Continue reading →

Problem: Christ’s Resurrection led to a confusing day, as His followers raced around the city. Skeptics point to alleged contradictions to prove Scripture wrong. Can the four Gospels be reconciled?

The Gospels can’t keep their stories straight! How many women went to the tomb and when did they leave? How many angels visited the tomb? Did Jesus appear to all the women or just Mary Magdalene?
Continue reading →

Problem: In his debate with Michael Horner on “Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead?” atheist Dan Barker asked:

Who were the women who came to the tomb? Matthew said it was Mary Magdalen and the other Mary. Mark said it was Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. Luke said it was Mary Magdalen, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women. John said Mary Magdalen….

Who was at the tomb when they arrived? Mark said there was one “young man.”… Luke said there was [sic] two men. Matthew said there was one angel, and John, the last writer, said, there’s two angels. See what’s happening here? See how the myth is growing and getting more exaggerated? [1}]

Continue reading →

Problem: Dismissing the miracles documented in the New Testament is a favorite pastime of many skeptics, and even some religious leaders. However, this “dismissal” game gets extremely complicated, because the miracles are so closely blended with historical facts that separating the two soon becomes like trying to separate two different colors of modeling clay. Take, for instance, the plight of Sir William Ramsay. His extensive education had engrained within him the keenest sense of scholarship. Along with that sense of scholarship came a built-in prejudice about the supposed inaccuracy of the Bible (especially the book of Acts). Ramsay noted: “… [A]bout 1880 to 1890 the book of the Acts was regarded as the weakest part of the New Testament. No one that had any regard for his reputation as a scholar cared to say a word in its defence. The most conservative of theological scholars, as a rule, thought the wisest plan of defence for the New Testament as a whole was to say as little as possible about the Acts” (1915, p. 38).
Continue reading →

Problem: One of the most commonly neglected rules of interpretation that Bible critics overlook when attacking Scripture is that extra information is not necessarily contradictory information. When one Bible writer offers more details than another on a particular subject, it is inappropriate to assume that one of the writers is mistaken. When a journalist in the 21st century writes about a man on the side of the road who has just escaped death following a particular catastrophe, while another journalist writes how this same man and his wife (standing next to him) are suffering survivors of the devastating disaster, it does not mean that the first journalist was dishonest in his representation of truth. Similarly, countless times throughout Scripture, and especially within the gospel accounts, extra information is given that critics cannot justifiably prove to be contradictory.
Continue reading →

Problem: Matthew and Mark state that the temple veil ripped right after Jesus died, but Luke states that it happened before the Lord’s death.

The Gospel accounts seem to disagree as to when the temple veil was torn in two in relation to Christ’s death. A quick look at the relevant passages will highlight this supposed contradiction.<
Continue reading →

Problem: Matthew records the centurion saying, “Truly this was the Son of God,” while Mark says substantially the same thing, adding only the word “man,” rendering it, “Truly this Man was the Son of God.” Luke records the words of the centurion as follows: “Certainly this was a righteous Man!” What did he really say?
Continue reading →

Problem: Controversy has surrounded the death of Christ on the cross for almost two millennia. In the days of the apostle Paul, it served as a “stumbling block” to the Jews, and was “foolishness” to the Greeks (1 Corinthians 1:23). Throughout the past 2,000 years, men and women of all ethnicities have rejected the story of the crucified, resurrected Savior named Jesus for many objectionable reasons. Sadly, for some today, even the physical cross itself has become a stumbling block. Because of an alleged contradiction surrounding the actual words written on the cross of Christ, some have suggested that the message of the cross once preached by John, Paul, Peter, Philip, and others simply cannot be trusted. According to skeptics, the gospel writers disagree regarding what the title read that appeared on the cross above Jesus’ head.
Continue reading →

Problem: Why do the inscriptions on Jesus’s cross differ among the four gospels?
Continue reading →

Problem: The wording of the accusation above Christ’s head on the cross is rendered differently in each Gospel account.
Continue reading →

Problem: One allegation leveled by Bible critics is the difference that exists between Mark and John in their reporting of the hour of the crucifixion (McKinsey, 2000, pp. 295-296; Wells, 2013). Mark records that the Lord was crucified at the third hour (15:25), while John records that Jesus was tried before Pilate at the sixth hour (19:14)—which would seem to be after the time Mark says Jesus was crucified. The harmonization of this surface difference is quite simple and further underscores the sophistication of Bible inspiration.
Continue reading →

Problem: While the gospels agree that the Roman soldiers who mocked and tortured Jesus dressed him in a robe to taunt him, they seem to disagree on the color of the garment. Was the robe of Jesus purple or scarlet? As the sun set down, colors become muted.  Let’s take a look:
Continue reading →

Problem: After being flogged with a dreadful Roman scourge, Jesus was taken by Pilate’s soldiers into the governor’s headquarters where the whole garrison gathered around Him. It was here that the soldiers placed a crown of thorns on His head, a reed in His hand, and a robe on His body. Skeptics maintain that a contradiction exists between the Gospel accounts because they describe the color of the robe differently. Whereas Matthew says that the soldiers “put a scarlet robe” on Jesus (27:27-28), Mark says that “they clothed Him with purple ” (15:16-17), and John states that the soldiers put “a purple robe” on Him (19:1-2). These differences have lead some to believe and advocate that the Gospel writers wrote under their own power with no help from a Higher Being, and thus they contradicted one another in their narratives. Because increasingly more people are swallowing such allegations blindly and rejecting the inerrancy of the Scriptures, logical answers are required. The question is, do such valid answers exist for the differences in the Gospel narratives concerning the robe placed upon Jesus after His scourging?
Continue reading →

Problem: One of the most commonly neglected rules of interpretation that Bible critics overlook when attacking Scripture is that extra information is not necessarily contradictory information. When one Bible writer offers more details than another on a particular subject, it is inappropriate to assume that one of the writers is mistaken. When a journalist in the 21st century writes about a man on the side of the road who has just escaped death following a particular catastrophe, while another journalist writes how this same man and his wife (standing next to him) are suffering survivors of the devastating disaster, it does not mean that the first journalist was dishonest in his representation of truth. Similarly, countless times throughout Scripture, and especially within the gospel accounts, extra information is given that critics cannot justifiably prove to be contradictory.
Continue reading →