So Called Contradictions
Kim Y.
Here are some of the so called "Contradictions" sent to me. Some of these are just down right foolish people that don't understand the context. For some of these, a 12 year old would understand these.
The first one is an easily understood story in the New Testament. When Christians read these, they can't help but laugh. Muslims might be able to fool each other but they will not fool a well based Born Again Christian.
All of these critics that have posted the contradictions on the Internet have come across web sites like mine or have been sent the correct interpetation of the Bible, but they remain fools as the Bible also says.
Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have
spoken:
Romans 1:19-32 Because that which may be known of God
is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For
the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that
they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God,
they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations,
and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools, 25 Who
changed the truth (Islam, Jehovahs, Mormons) of God into a lie, and worshipped and
served the creature (Muhammad, Joseph Smith) more than the Creator, who is blessed
for ever. Amen.
1 The contradiction are
in blue, my comments are in black.
Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist? (a)
Yes (Matthew 14:5). (b) No. It was Herodias, the wife of Herod who wanted to kill
him. But Herod knew that he was a righteous man and kept him safe (Mark 6:20).
"And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they
counted him as a prophet." Matthew 14:5.
"For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed
him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly." Mark
6:20.
Answer.
Herod wanted to kill John but he simply cannot. Read: Matthew 14:1-11 and Mark
6:14-29, Herod really wanted to kill the Baptist and put an end to the lather's rebukes
but because he did not want to agitate the people who believed in John as a prophet,
he was hindered. His belief that John was a prophet also posed as hindrance. He simply
weighed that letting the Baptist live in prison was more profitable than putting
him to death. However there was another influential person who came in the picture--(later explained)
one who also had a grudge to settle but no concern on pleasing the people, however,
she had no authority and she was Herodias. Herodias as the story went, trapped Herod
through her daughter into beheading the Baptist. What was Herodias and Herod's motivation
behind this? Read on:
If you read the chapter you will find the reason why:
Matthew 14
6 But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter
of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. 7 Whereupon
he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask. 8 And
she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist's head
in a charger. 9 And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's
sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her. 10 And
he sent, and beheaded John in the prison.
So where in the world is the contradiction here? The person read both parts and he/she
was still ignorant, stupid, and naive
Genealogy: Jesus descended from which son of David? (a) Solomon
(Matthew 1:6). (b) Nathan (Luke
Answer. Jesus had two parents so isn’t it only natural that we see two genealogies
(family tree) of Jesus? But according to some, the Jews never present a genealogy
through the line of the mother. But do they? Please see also our answer in another alleged contradiction below.
Nathan was the direct ancestor (blood line) of Jesus. Luke presented the "natural"
line of Jesus to the Gentile world through Mary by saying,
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed)
the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." Luke 3:23.
Matthew, on the contrary, presented the "legal" line of Jesus through Joseph
(his adoptive father) to the Jews.
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is
called Christ." Matthew 1:16.
Both legally and naturally Jesus rightfully inherits the throne of David.
Where is the contradiction?
Genealogy: Who
was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary? (a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16). (b) Heli (Luke
3:23).
Answer. Matthew presented the "legal" line of Jesus through his
adoptive father Joseph while Luke presented the "natural" line of Jesus
through His mother Mary. Jacob, therefore, is the natural father of Joseph while
Heli is the legal father, otherwise, known as his father-in-law. But how do we support
this claim? Matthew originally presented this gospel account to the Hebrews, this
is obvious if one would scrutinize his style of writing, so, he presented to them
that Jesus is legally in the line of succession of kingship through his parent Joseph
up to Abraham. Luke, on the other hand, who was a traveling companion of Paul (the
apostle sent to the gentiles) originally presented his gospel account to the Gentiles,
by showing them that Jesus is the promised "seed of a woman" (Genesis 3:15)
Messiah to the world and tracing his genealogy up to Adam. But did Luke present a
valid Jewish genealogy by doing this? Why not!
Observe that: (a) The son-in-law’s are often called son in the Bible. (b) A woman's
husband is customarily considered a son of his father-in-law especially if she is
the only daughter (cf. Ruth 1:11,12). This way Luke was able to present the natural
line of Jesus while maintaining the custom of presenting a genealogy through the
line of the fathers.
Where is the contradictoin?