Note: any text in black is taken from the website Infidels.

org and contains the viewpoint of

Paul Carlson. Refutations and comments on Mr. Carlson’s arguments are in blue.
Humorous (hopefully) comments are in red.

Library: Modern Documents: Paul Carlson: New Testament

Contradictions

Please note that our evaluations of Mr. Carlson’s facts, reasonings and conclusions
are only as critical of him as he is of the Bible and its writers.

The position we take in regard to the Bible: We have been closely examining the
evidence for over 30 years and find the Bible to harmonious throughout and free
from contradictions. Instead, in it we find proof throughout that the writers were
accurate and honest in reporting what they saw and heard. Though living over a
period of 1600 years and being of very diversified backgrounds, each writer
provides testimony that harmonizes with the testimony of the others. The basic
rules we use to understand accounts that some consider contradictory or
fabrications are as follows (a few other guidelines are brought up in the refutations
as the need arises):

1. Different writers writing of the same incident will include different facts
about the incident, depending on their sources and their purpose in writing.
Using simple logic enables us to put the accounts together into one unified
rendition of the incident. This is similar to how any investigator of an
accident will take the available evidence from different witnesses and attempt
to piece it together to obtain an accurate picture of what occurred. The way
to tell if the harmonization of accounts is a plausible solution is to see if each
account can be drawn from the harmonization of all the accounts.
2. The fact that one writer includes things about an incident and another writer
excludes them is no proof of disagreement. For example, if one writer says
two angels appeared and another says one angel appeared, the second writer
is not to considered as being in conflict because he decided to only mention
one angel and for some reason to ignore the other.

3. Our understanding of whether something actually occurred that is reported

to have occurred must take into account ancient historical records, including
those of the Bible itself. Also to be included is an understanding of the
languages used to write the Bible, Hebrew and Greek, and their respective
grammars.

4. We must be careful not to read into an account things that are not there,
saying the writers implied something when there is no evidence they did.
 5. Exemplary individuals mentioned in the Bible were well versed in it and lived
by it. To understand their thoughts and actions, we need to make use of the
Bible knowledge that was available to them.

6. The Bible claims to be from one author, Jehovah God (2Timothy 3:16, 17).
So, we need to view it as a connected whole, and realize that a scripture from
one part of the Bible will often explain a scripture in another part.

7. The Bible throughout uses the concept of type and antitype, that is, of one
thing prefiguring another. It also states prophecies that result in more than
one fulfillment. See section I.E.2 below.

Note that instead of using B.C. and A.D. along with dates, we use B.C.E (Before the
Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era).

CAUTION: comments in red are from an anonymous source and are potentially
inflammatory. They have been retained solely as humor and should be removed
before passing this document on to others.

New Testament Contradictions

Paul Carlson

I. THE BIRTH OF JESUS

A. THE GENEALOGIES OF JOSEPH
1. Matthew and Luke disagree

Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and
Luke 3:23-38). They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Church
apologists try to eliminate this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is
actually Mary's, even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph's genealogy (Luke
3:23). Christians have had problems reconciling the two genealogies since at least the
early fourth century. It was then that Eusebius, a "Church Father," wrote in his The
History of the Church, "each believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these
passages."

Luke gives much attention to Mary in his gospel (Luke 1:26-56; 2:19, 51) and thus, in
keeping with this, gave her genealogy of the line of the Messiah. The rule was that if
there were no sons in a family, the inheritance passed through the daughter or daughters
(Numbers 26:28-33; 27:1-9). Thus, in listing the male ancestors, on Mary’s side, of Jesus
Christ, Luke starts with Joseph (who was, according to opinion (Luke 3:23) Jesus’
father), goes to his father-in-law Heli (Mary’s father whose inheritance passed to Joseph
if Mary was the only child), and then proceeds to list Mary’s ancestry. Luke wanted to
show that Jesus had the natural right to be the Messiah since he was descended from
David. Matthew’s account lists Joseph’s ancestry. Joseph adopted Jesus and so passed
on to him the legal right of being in the Messiah’s line from David.

Paul wrote in the first century that after his death men would arise, speak twisted things,
and draw away the disciples after themselves (Acts 20: 29, 30). So, it is no wonder that
ones in the fourth century would have problems understanding the word of God.

2. Why genealogies of Joseph?

Both the genealogies of Matthew and Luke show that Joseph was a direct descendant of
King David. But if Joseph is not Jesus' father, then Joseph's genealogies are meaningless
as far as Jesus is concerned, and one has to wonder why Matthew and Luke included
them in their gospels. The answer, of course, is that the genealogies originally said that
Jesus was the son of Joseph and thus Jesus fulfilled the messianic requirement of being a
direct descendant of King David.

Long after Matthew and Luke wrote the genealogies the church invented (or more likely
borrowed from the mystery religions) the doctrine of the virgin birth. Although the virgin
birth could be accommodated by inserting a few words into the genealogies to break the
physical link between Joseph and Jesus, those same insertions also broke the physical
link between David and Jesus.

The church had now created two major problems: 1) to explain away the existence of two
genealogies of Joseph, now rendered meaningless, and 2) to explain how Jesus was a
descendant of David.

The apostle Paul says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3). Here the
word "seed" is literally in the Greek "sperma." This same Greek word is translated in
other verses as "descendant(s)" or "offspring." The point is that the Messiah had to be a
physical descendant of King David through the male line. That Jesus had to be a physical
descendant of David means that even if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus (as some
apologists have suggested), Jesus would still not qualify as Messiah if he had been born
of a virgin - seed from the line of David was required.

Women did not count in reckoning descent for the simple reason that it was then believed
that the complete human was present in the man's sperm (the woman's egg being
discovered in 1827). The woman's womb was just the soil in which the seed was planted.
Just as there was barren soil that could not produce crops, so also the Bible speaks of
barren wombs that could not produce children.
This is the reason that although there are many male genealogies in the Bible, there are
no female genealogies. This also eliminates the possibility put forward by some
apologists that Jesus could be of the "seed of David" through Mary.

The rule was that if there were no sons in a family, the inheritance passed through the
daughter or daughters (Numbers 26:28-33; 27:1-9). Thus, Jesus’ natural inheritance
from the line of David came through Mary. This Biblical fact negates the flimsy
arguments above.

In regard to the Greek word sperma, Greek lexicons do list ‘the male seed or semen’ as
one of its meanings, but they also list ‘children, offspring, progeny’. In fact, Revelation
12:17 refers to “the seed (form of sperma) of the woman”, showing that the word does
not exclusively refer to descendents through the male line.

3. Why do only Matthew and Luke know of the virgin birth?

Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin
birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would
expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince
the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.

The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened
his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that
Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a
virgin (Galatians 4:4).

This same argument could be used to question why only John mentions the resurrection
of Lazarus – a man who had been dead for 4 days (John chapter 11). This is actually a
much greater miracle than the resurrection of the widow of Nain’s son and Jairus’
daughter – ones who had just died. This was one of his greatest faith-building miracles
(John 12:9-11). Why was it not mentioned? The same reason that there are 4 gospel
accounts of Jesus’ life - so each could tell of the Messiah and build the knowledge and
faith of their readers. There would be no purpose for each to repeat the same events and
details of his life, but each adds things that, together with the other accounts, build a well-
rounded picture of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. The Bible claims to be the work
of One author (2 Tim 3:16, 17), so it needs to be viewed as a whole. He would have
details added to it as necessary for overall understanding.

4. Why did Matthew include four women in Joseph's genealogy?

Matthew mentions four women in the Joseph's genealogy.

a. Tamar - disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, her father-in-law (Genesis 38:12-
19). She was actually performing brother-in-law marriage since her husband had died,
and the law was that a relative was to take her as wife to produce offspring for the dead
relation (Genesis 38:6-11; Deuteronomy 25:5, 6).
b. Rahab - was a harlot who lived in the city of Jericho in Canaan (Joshua 2:1). She
changed her life, married an Israelite, and produced a legitimate offspring, Boaz (Joshua
2:9-13; 6:25; Matthew 1:5).

c. Ruth - at her mother-in-law Naomi's request, she came secretly to where Boaz was
sleeping and spent the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married (Ruth 3:1-14).
There is no record of immorality in this account. Verse 14 says “she kept lying at his feet
until the morning”. The Bible is very forthright in exposing immorality and not hiding it,
no matter how important or righteous the person committing it had been before (2 Samuel
chapter 11; note how God would expose this, as shown in 12:12).

d. Bathsheba - became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah (2
Samuel 11:2-5). But her conceiving and giving birth to Solomon was done under the
marriage bond (2 Samuel 11:27; 12:24, 25).

To have women mentioned in a genealogy is very unusual. That all four of the women
mentioned are guilty of some sort of sexual impropriety cannot be a coincidence. Why
would Matthew mention these, and only these, women? The only reason that makes any
sense is that Joseph, rather than the Holy Spirit, impregnated Mary prior to their getting
married, and that this was known by others who argued that because of this Jesus could
not be the Messiah. By mentioning these women in the genealogy Matthew is in effect
saying, "The Messiah, who must be a descendant of King David, will have at least four
"loose women" in his genealogy, so what difference does one more make?"

As noted before, the Bible never condones immorality or tries to cover it over. The real
reason Matthew added these was a reflection of what his Master Jesus Christ had taught
him about the dignity of women, something that was far advanced of the degrading
attitudes of many in Jesus’ time toward women. How uplifting to include women in the
genealogy, showing the Creator’s favorable attitude toward all his human creation. The
ways Jesus uplifted the dignity of women is as follows:

1. He appeared after his resurrection first of all to women, who told of this to others
(Matt 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 23:55-24:11). Note Luke 24:11 that the male
disciples would not believe the testimony of the women. In the legal system of
their day, the testimony of women was not admissible as evidence. Jesus’
appearing to them first showed how he valued their testimony.

The book Palestine in the Time of Christ states: “In some cases, the woman
was put almost on a par with the slave. For instance, she could not give
evidence in a court of justice, except to attest the death of her husband.”
Referring to Leviticus 5:1, The Mishnah explains: “[The law about] ‘an oath
of testimony’ applies to men but not to women.”—Shebuoth 4:I.

2. He allowed the possibility of a woman divorcing her husband. (Mark 10:12).

This was very rarely allowed in first century Jewish culture.
 First-century Jewish historian Josephus reports that King Herod's sister
Salome sent her husband “a document dissolving their marriage, which was
not in accordance with Jewish law. For it is (only) the man who is permitted
by us to do this.”-Jewish Antiquities, XV, vii, 10.

3. He taught women the truth about God and worshipping him (Luke 8:1-3; John
4:7-9, 27). In first century Judaism, men were discouraged from talking with
women.

According to the Mishna, a record of Jewish traditions and thought in the

early centuries of the common era: “If any man gives his daughter a
knowledge of the Law it is as though he taught her lechery.”—Sotah 3:4;
“Talk not much with womankind. . . . He that talks much with womankind
brings evil upon himself and neglects the study of the Law and at the last will
inherit Gehenna.”—Aboth 1:5. “There is no evidence that prior to Jesus’
ministry Jewish women were ever allowed to be disciples of a great teacher,
much less travel with such a teacher, or to instruct anyone other than
children,” notes The Anchor Bible Dictionary.

Many of his disciples were women of an immoral background, but gained forgiveness
and a dignity they could find nowhere else. Matthew’s genealogy reflects this elevated
attitude, showing that women, no matter what their background (two of the four women
listed being non-Israelites – looked down upon by first-century Jews), could find honor
among the disciples of Jesus Christ just as women had received it by being included in
the line of his ancestors.

B. THE ANGEL'S MESSAGE

In Matthew, the angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary's child will
save his people from their sins. In Luke, the angel tells Mary that her son will be great, he
will be called the Son of the Most High and will rule on David's throne forever. A short
time later Mary tells Elizabeth that all generations will consider her (Mary) blessed
because of the child that will be born to her.

If this were true, Mary and Joseph should have had the highest regard for their son.
Instead, we read in Mark 3:20-21 that Jesus' family tried to take custody of him because
they thought he had lost his mind. And later, in Mark 6:4-6 Jesus complained that he
received no honor among his own relatives and his own household.

By the time of Jesus’ ministry, his adoptive father, Joseph, was probably dead (John
19:26, 27). Mary’s attitude toward Jesus is shown in Luke 2:19, 51; her belief in his
powers is shown in John 2:1-10. She later became a disciple of Christ (Acts 1:12-14).
So, the passages referred to in Mark must be referring to his other relatives, his many
brothers and sisters and perhaps cousins, etc. (Matthew 13:55, 56; John 7:5).
C. THE DATE
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew
2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius
was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4
BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while
Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took
place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while
Quirinius was governor..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until
well after Herod's death.

The dates given here are greatly disputed by scholars. Many believe Quirinius had two
separate governorships of Syria, one of them during the year 2 B.C.E. Many also believe
Herod did not die until 1 B.C.E. This would allow for simultaneous rulerships. (See the
articles ‘Herod’ and ‘Quirinius’ in Insight on the Scriptures.)

D. THE PLACE
Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew quotes Micah
5:2 to show that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Actually, Matthew misquotes Micah
(compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew 2:6). Although this misquote is rather insignificant,
Matthew's poor understanding of Hebrew will have great significance later in his gospel.

In regard to Matthew’s quote of Micah 5:2, he is referring to the quotation contained in

the answer of the chief priests to Herod – this is not his quotation of Micah 5:2, although
the meaning it conveys is essentially the same. Later we shall see whether Matthew or
Mr. Carlson has the poor understanding of the original Biblical languages.

Luke has Mary and Joseph traveling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem
in Judea for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it
was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only
because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23).

Matthew does not say that only after Jesus’ birth did his family reside in Nazareth – he
only refers to the fact that they resided there after returning from Egypt, whereas they had
evidently stayed in Bethlehem for some time after Jesus’ birth, at least for 2 years
(Matthew 2:16).

In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of
his or her birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a
bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the
Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born
(which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of
people to travel).

Roman bureaucratic blunders as to Judea were not uncommon. See ‘Pilate’ in Insight on
the Scriptures for several examples.

E. THE PROPHECIES
Matthew says that the birth of Jesus and the events following it fulfilled several Old
Testament prophecies. These prophecies include:

1. The virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14)

This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the
two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original
Hebrew, the verse says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a "virgin" which is an
entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the
Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek.

This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to
him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).

The Jews themselves had translated the Hebrew word ‘almah’ in Isaiah 7:14 as the Greek
word ‘parthenos’ (virgin) in the Septuagint translation, which became the commonly used
translation in first century Palestine. (That ‘almah’ could be applied to a virgin is shown
in Gen 24:16, 23.) This was translated some 280 years before Christ. Matthew was
simply noting that the passage as translated had a fulfillment in Jesus. Immanuel
(meaning ‘With us is God’) was simply a title name, just as ‘Mighty God’, ‘Eternal
Father’, and ‘Prince of Peace’ are title names in Isaiah 9:6 that are given to the Messiah.
These supplement but do not replace the Messiah’s personal name.

2. The "slaughter of the innocents" (Jeremiah 31:15)

Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male
children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs, and that this
was in fulfillment of prophecy.

This is a pure invention on Matthew's part. Herod was guilty of many monstrous crimes,
including the murder of several members of his own family. However, ancient historians
such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod's crimes, do not mention what would
have been Herod's greatest crime by far. It simply didn't happen.

Bethlehem was noted as a small town in Micah’s day (Micah 5:2; about 700 B.C.E.) and
as a village in Jesus’ time (John 7:42). The slaughter of the boys 2 years and younger,
though horrendous, may have amounted to a few dozen or less. Herod far exceeded this
deed (from the viewpoint of a worldly historian such as Josephus) by murdering the 45
men who constituted the ruling body of the Jews (see ‘Herod’ in Insight on the
Scriptures), and even killing two of his own sons and his favorite wife.

While not trying to minimize Herod’s actions, we note that in that period of human
history the death of infants was not accorded the importance it is today. The Romans and
surrounding nations regularly practiced the exposure of infants, that is, they left to die
babies they considered inferior or unwanted. Josephus wrote to a Roman audience. Also,
omissions by historians are universal; they edit and refine their works to include what
they feel is necessary.

The context of Jeremiah 31:15 makes it clear that the weeping is for the Israelites about
to be taken into exile in Babylon, and has nothing to do with slaughtered children
hundreds of years later.

The Bible contains many prophecies that have more than one fulfillment. As an example
of one, read the promise of Jehovah to King David where He promised that a descendent
of his would rule in his stead (2 Samuel 7:12-16). King David applied this to his son
Solomon (1 Kings 2:1-4; Psalm 89). The apostle Paul applied this scripture to Jesus
Christ (Hebrews 1: 1-5, where verse 5 quotes 2 Samuel 7:14). The Bible uses the idea of
type and antitype often, where one thing prefigures another (Hebrews chapters 7 and 9;
Galatians 4:21-31).

When someone writes a book and, from later sections of it, makes references back to
earlier parts of it, he ought to know what he is talking about – he authored the book. It is
the same way with the Author of the Bible: references he caused later writers to make to
the words of earlier writers are something done at his own discretion. For a person like
Mr. Carlson, grossly ignorant of the scriptures and ancient history (as the rest of this
document goes on to show), to come along hundreds of years later and say the Author
had no basis for making these references is the height of presumptuousness.

3. Called out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1)

Matthew has Mary, Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, and says that the
return of Jesus from Egypt was in fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 2:15). However,
Matthew quotes only the second half of Hosea 11:1. The first half of the verse makes it
very clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led
by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus.

Again, a prophecy with more than one fulfillment.

As further proof that the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt never
happened, one need only compare the Matthew and Luke accounts of what happened
between the time of Jesus' birth and the family's arrival in Nazareth. According to Luke,
forty days (the purification period) after Jesus was born, his parents brought him to the
temple, made the prescribed sacrifice, and returned to Nazareth. Into this same time
period Matthew somehow manages to squeeze: the visit of the Magi to Herod, the
slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt, the sojourn in Egypt, and the return
from Egypt. All of this action must occur in the forty-day period because Matthew has
the Magi visit Jesus in Bethlehem before the slaughter of the innocents.

What a poor historian Mr. Carlson is. Since Herod knew that the young Jesus was not a
newborn, he had the boys 2 years and younger killed (Matthew 2:16). Also, he was
living in a house when they arrived, not lying in a manger in a stable, which is where he
was born (Matthew 2:11). Thus, the incidents of the Magi, the slaughter of the innocents,
and the flight to Egypt took place some time after Jesus’ birth. Mr. Carlson’s knowledge
of Bible history seems to come more from watching nativity scenes at Christmas than
from reading scripture. Don’t give up your day job, Paulie boy!! The scripture referring
to their residing in Nazareth (Luke 2:39) takes the long-range view of where the family
resided while Jesus was growing up.

F. THE TRUTH BEHIND THE PROPHECIES -

MATTHEW'S (CARLSON’S) BIG BLUNDER
Since the prophecies mentioned above do not, in their original context, refer to Jesus,
why did Matthew include them in his gospel? There are two possibilities:

1. The church says that the words had a hidden future context as well as the original
context, i.e., God was keeping very important secrets from His chosen people.

2. Matthew, in his zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, searched the Old Testament
for passages (sometimes just phrases) that could be construed as messianic prophecies
and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those "prophecies."

Fortunately for those who really want to know the truth, Matthew made a colossal
blunder later in his gospel which leaves no doubt at all as to which of the above
possibilities is true. His blunder involves what is known as Jesus' triumphant entry into
Jerusalem riding on a donkey (if you believe Mark, Luke or John) or riding on two
donkeys (if you believe Matthew). In Matthew 21:1-7, two animals are mentioned in
three of the verses, so this cannot be explained away as a copying error. And Matthew
has Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, "on them he
sat."

Why does Matthew have Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time? Because he
misread Zechariah 9:9 which reads in part, "mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal
of a donkey."

Anyone familiar with Old Testament Hebrew would know that the word translated "and"
in this passage does not indicate another animal but is used in the sense of "even" (which
is used in many translations) for emphasis. The Old Testament often uses parallel phrases
which refer to the same thing for emphasis, but Matthew was evidently not familiar with
this usage. Although the result is rather humorous, it is also very revealing. It
demonstrates conclusively that Matthew created events in Jesus' life to fulfill Old
Testament prophecies, even if it meant creating an absurd event. Matthew's gospel is full
of fulfilled prophecies. Working the way Matthew did, and believing as the church does
in "future contexts," any phrase in the Bible could be turned into a fulfilled prophecy!

Let’s take more than a superficial look at the passage in Matthew 21:7 and see whether it
is Matthew or Mr. Carlson who has the “ poor understanding “ (see 1D above) of Biblical
languages. It reads: “And they brought the ass and its colt, and they put upon these their
outer garments, and he seated himself upon them.” A question that immediately comes to
mind is, “The ‘them’ that Jesus sat on, does it refer to the animals or to the outer
garments?” Looking into the Greek text and using a very basic knowledge of Greek, we
can reason as follows. Gender refers to whether a noun or pronoun is considered
masculine, feminine, or neuter for matters of grammar. In Greek, a pronoun must agree
with its antecedent (the noun or pronoun it is referring to) in gender.

The gender of the substantives of this verse can be seen highlighted in red in the
following interlinear rendering of it:
ονον3688 N-ASF και2532 τον3588 πωλον4454 N-ASM … τα3588 ιματια2440 N-APN και2532 επεκαθισεν1940
επανω1883 αυτων846 P-GPM/N
ass and the colt … the outer garments and he sat
on atop them

The Greek text thus shows ‘ass’ to be feminine, ‘colt’ to be masculine, ‘outer garments’
to be neuter, and ‘them’ to be either masculine or neuter, the two forms being identical in
genitive case of the plural form “them” (both being αυτων846). Showing that “them”
would be referring to the “outer garments” and not to the “ass and the colt” is
Robertson’s Grammar: “THE MINOR WORDS IN A SENTENCE. In general they come close to
the word to which they belong in sense … In general the words go together that make
sense, and the interpretation is sometimes left to the reader’s insight” (pp. 418, 419).
Associating “them” with “outer garments” produces a meaningful picture; doing
otherwise creates nonsense.

Why does Mr. Carlson claim Matthew has a “poor understanding” of a Biblical language
and that his usage thereof is ‘humorous’, when his own understanding of Biblical Greek
could only be classified as very poor and the results he produces as not so much
humorous as they are pathetic. The only ‘ass’ that Mr. Carlson’s reasoning sheds light on
is himself.

G. CONCLUSIONS REACHED SO FAR

From looking at just the birth accounts several conclusions can be reached, all of which
will be further reinforced by examining other parts of the New Testament: (the logical
conclusions reached so far are shown after each supposed one)
1. The gospel writers contradict each other. Mr. Carlson forces contradictory
explanations of scripture upon the reader betraying a limited and faulty understanding of
the Bible, Biblical languages, and ancient history.

2. The gospel writers rewrote history when it suited their purposes. Mr. Carlson writes an
inaccurate view of Biblical history to suit his pre-determined purpose of proving it
wrong.

3. The gospels were extensively edited to accommodate the evolving dogma of the
church. No such editing has been herein proven. In view of the evidence produced, it
only exists in the author’s mind.

4. The gospel writers misused the Old Testament to provide prophecies for Jesus to
fulfill. Mr. Carlson misuses the Old and New Testaments to try to prove pre-conceived
ideas, and in so doing betrays skills befitting either someone knowing nothing personally
of Biblical languages or someone using the little he does know for deceptive purposes.

From the birth accounts alone, it is obvious that in no way can the New Testament be
considered "the inerrant Word of God," or even "the Word of God, inerrant regarding
matters important to faith and practice." From Mr. Carlson’s discussion of the birth
accounts of Jesus alone, it is obvious that in no way can his words or reasoning be
considered inerrant, nor even the words of someone who proffers credible conclusions
about the subjects of which he so authoritatively speaks.

II. JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST

A. WHAT DID JOHN THE BAPTIST KNOW ABOUT
JESUS AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?
John's first encounter with Jesus was while both of them were still in their mothers'
wombs, at which time John, apparently recognizing his Savior, leaped for joy (Luke
1:44). Much later, while John is baptizing, he refers to Jesus as "the Lamb of God who
takes away the sins of the world", and "the Son of God" (John 1:29,36). Later still, John
is thrown in prison from which he does not return alive. John's definite knowledge of
Jesus as the son of God and savior of the world is explicitly contradicted by Luke 7:18-23
in which the imprisoned John sends two of his disciples to ask Jesus, "Are you the one
who is coming, or do we look for someone else?"

John’s words about ‘the one who is coming’ is clearly a reference to Daniel 7: 13, 14
which contains the words: “someone like a son of man happened to be coming”. This
was a scripture pointing to the one who would rule the entire world. So while John knew
Jesus to be the one taking away mankind’s sin and to be the Son of God, he was not
certain as to whether Jesus would also be the one to rule mankind, or whether God would
have someone else arise to accomplish this part of his stated purpose for mankind.
B. WHY DID JOHN BAPTIZE JESUS?
John baptized for repentance (Matthew 3:11). Since Jesus was supposedly without sin, he
had nothing to repent of. The fact that he was baptized by John has always been an
embarrassment to the church. The gospels offer no explanation for Jesus' baptism, apart
from the meaningless explanation given in Matthew 3:14-15 "to fulfill all righteousness."
Other passages, which indicate that Jesus did not consider himself sinless, are also an
embarrassment to the church (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19).

That Jesus neither needed nor was seeking John’s baptism for repentance is shown by the
fact that John tried to prevent Jesus from being baptized. John was a close relative of
Jesus and so would know from personal experience if Jesus were guilty of sins
observable to others. (Matthew 3:14; Luke 1:34-36). Jesus’ purpose in being baptized
was to publicly manifest that he was now making the doing of God’s will the evident
purpose in his life (Hebrews 10:5-7; compare John 1:6-9, showing Jesus’ ‘coming into
the world’ was at his baptism).

The scriptures at Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19 where Jesus refused the title ‘good’ are not
an indication of any sinfulness on his part. Jesus himself referred to ordinary humans as
‘good’ in Matthew 12:35 and Luke 6:45, so ‘good’ does not mean sinless. The context of
the accounts where he refuses the title ‘good’ show that he was refusing to be looked to
as the source of goodness by someone seeking a guru to tell him about what was good
and what was not. Instead, he pointed to God as the only true source of Goodness and
went on to quote Jehovah’s commandments as a basis for goodness.

True Christians are in no way embarrassed by the facts Mr. Carlson mentions. He,
however, should be greatly embarrassed by the exposure, even up to this point, of his
ignorance and misunderstanding of the scriptures and of the imbecility of his conclusions.

Luke, who claims to be chronological (Luke 1:3), tries to give the impression that John
did not baptize Jesus. Luke's account of Jesus' baptism occurs after the account of John's
imprisonment (Luke 3:20-21).

The part of Luke’s account in 3:18-20 speaking of John’s imprisonment is to be

considered parenthetical, so that John’s speaking of the Messiah in verses 15-17 and the
account of Jesus’ baptism in verses 21 and 22 are to be taken together. The Greek word
translated ‘in order’ in Luke 1:3 (kathexes) means ‘in order, one after the other of
sequence in time, space, or logic’ (Bauer’s Greek English Lexicon). Thus Luke’s gospel
is written in logical order, not necessarily in chronological.

C. WHY DIDN'T JOHN THE BAPTIST BECOME A

FOLLOWER OF JESUS?
If John knew that Jesus was the Son of God, why didn't he become a disciple of Jesus?
And why didn't all, or even most, of John's disciples become Jesus' disciples? Most of
John's disciples remained loyal to him, even after his death, and a sect of his followers
persisted for centuries.

John did not become a disciple of Jesus because God’s will for him was to be someone
who prepared others to accept the Messiah and who would direct others to the Messiah
(John 1:19-34). After the completion of that work he would likely have become a disciple
of Jesus, but he was killed beforetime (Matthew 3:14; 14:1-13). There is no evidence in
scripture that most of John’s disciples did not become Jesus’ disciples. John 1:35-37 has
an account where, after hearing John’s testimony about Jesus, 2 of them followed Jesus.
Perhaps the persecution and sacrifice involved in being one of Jesus’ disciples was more
than some of John’s disciples could bear (Luke 9:23-26; John 15:18-20).

The gospel writers were forced to include Jesus' baptism in their gospels so that they
could play it down. They could not ignore it because John's followers and other Jews who
knew of Jesus' baptism were using the fact of his baptism to challenge the idea that Jesus
was the sinless Son of God. The gospel writers went to great pains to invent events that
showed John as being subordinate to Jesus.

The counterarguments provided negate these conclusions. The only one going to great
pains to invent things that did not exist is Mr. Carlson. And as far as pain goes, the pain
Mr. Carlson will feel upon reading this exposure of his stupidity ought to be very great
(that is, unless his mental condition is the result of a frontal lobotomy, or, as is more
likely the case, a brain transplant from a baboon).

III. THE LAST SUPPER

A. WHEN - BEFORE OR DURING PASSOVER?
In Matthew, Mark and Luke the last supper takes place on the first day of the Passover
(Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7). In John's gospel it takes place a day earlier and
Jesus is crucified on the first day of the Passover (John 19:14).

‘Preparation’ was the term used by the Jews to denote the day before the weekly Sabbath,
when no work would be done. In preparation for that day, meals would be prepared
ahead of time and other necessary things taken care of on the day before. Since the day
after Jesus died was a Sabbath day that occurred during the Passover festival, the day
before that Sabbath could be termed (as it is in John 19:14) ‘the Preparation of (meaning
‘belonging to’) the Passover (John 19:31, 32; Mark 15:42, 43; Luke 23:54). Thus John’s
account harmonizes with the rest.

B. THE LORD'S SUPPER - INSTITUTED BY JESUS

OR PAUL?
In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus institutes the Lord's Supper during the Passover meal
(in John's gospel the Lord's Supper is not instituted - Jesus was dead by the time of the
Passover meal (refuted above)).

In 1 Corinthians 11:23 the apostle Paul writes, "For I received from the Lord that which I
also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took
bread..." Here Paul claims that he got the instructions for the Lord's Supper directly from
Jesus (evidently from one of his many revelations). Paul writes these words about twenty
years after Jesus' death, and had the church already been celebrating the Lord's Supper he
certainly would have been aware of it and would have had no need to receive it from the
Lord. Some apologists try to play games with the text to make it seem like Paul actually
received the instructions from the other apostles, but one thing Paul stresses is that what
he teaches he receives from no man (Galatians 1:11-12).

The fact that Christ revealed facts about the Lord’s Supper to Paul when Christians in
general were already observing it is nothing contradictory. When Paul became a
Christian a few years after Jesus’ death, none of the gospel accounts had yet been written
down, so Jesus related some things to Paul directly and not through other Christians. He
makes clear in the letter to the Corinthians why he is stating (actually, re-stating) the
instructions on how to observe the Lord’s supper: this is because, as he also mentions,
they are observing it incorrectly and need to get back to the basics (1 Corinthians 11:20-
22; 27-34). Prior in 1 Corinthians, Paul had referred to teachings of Christ in order to
help that congregation (1 Corinthians 7:10, 11 referring to Matthew 19:3-9).

The Lord's Supper was not invented by Paul, but was borrowed by him from Mithraism,
the mystery religion that existed long before Christianity and was Christianity's chief
competitor up until the time of Constantine. In Mithraism, the central figure is the
mythical Mithras, who died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected. Believers in
Mithras were rewarded with eternal life. Part of the Mithraic communion liturgy included
the words, "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be
made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."[*].

The asterisk at the end of the paragraph just before this leads to the footnote inserted by
the ones running the website where Mr. Carlson’s concepts are taken from (this footnote
occurs at the end of this document). Their comments adequately show that Mr. Carlson’s
conclusions are purely conjectural and cannot be proven, since Mithraism could have
adopted these customs from Christianity instead of it having to be the other way around.

The early Church Fathers Justin Martyr and Tertullian tried to say that Mithraism copied
the Lord's Supper from Christianity, but they were forced to say that demons had copied
it since only demons could copy an event in advance of its happening! They could not say
that the followers of Mithras had copied it - it was a known fact that Mithraism had
included the ritual a long time before Christ was born.

Where did Mithraism come from? The ancient historian Plutarch mentioned Mithraism in
connection with the pirates of Cilicia in Asia Minor encountering the Roman general
Pompey in 67 BC. More recently, in 1989 Mithraic scholar David Ulansey wrote a book,
The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries, in which he convincingly shows that Mithraism
originated in the city of Tarsus in Cilicia. That this is also the hometown of the apostle
Paul cannot be a coincidence.

Paul admits that he did not know Jesus during Jesus' lifetime. He also says that his gospel
was not taught to him by any man (Galatians 1:11-12). All of Paul's theology is based on
his own revelations, or visions. Like dreams, visions or hallucinations do not come from
nowhere, but reveal what is already in a person's subconscious. It is very likely that the
source of most of Paul's visions, and therefore most of his theology, is to be found in
Mithraism. That we find Jesus at the Last Supper saying more or less the same thing Paul
said to the Corinthians many years later is another example of the church modifying the
gospels to incorporate the theology of Paul, which eventually won out over the theology
of Jesus' original disciples.

Mr. Carlson’s conclusions, as usual, have no sound basis. The only hallucinations that
seem to have occurred are the ones he experienced when he envisioned he could refute
the validity of the Bible.

C. JUDAS ISCARIOT
It is very unclear in the gospels just what Judas Iscariot's betrayal consisted of, probably
because there was absolutely no need for a betrayal. Jesus could have been arrested any
number of times without the general populace knowing about it. It would have been
simple to keep tabs on his whereabouts. The religious authorities did not need a betrayal -
only the gospel writers needed a betrayal, so that a few more "prophecies" could be
fulfilled. The whole episode is pure fiction - and, as might be expected, it is riddled with
contradictions.

The reasons a betrayal was needed are shown in such scriptures as Mark 12:12 and
Matthew 21:45, 46 – the religious leaders who wanted Jesus dead were in fear of what
the crowds of people might do to them if they seized him openly, since the crowds
viewed Jesus as a man of God. They needed someone to lead them to Jesus at a time
when he was not near a crowd, when they could seize him without that obstruction, thus
necessitating a betrayal (Luke 22:6). There is no indication Jesus allowed others to know
his whereabouts when not in public during that final Passover week.

A further discussion below of supposed contradictions will show what is riddled, and that
is Mr. Carlson’s argumentation, which is riddled with so many holes that we are
beginning to wonder if, in fact, his entire document is fiction and just given for some sort
of perverse amusement rather than serious consideration.

1. The prophecy

Matthew says that Judas' payment and death were prophesied by Jeremiah, and then he
quotes Zechariah 11:12-13 as proof!
The Jews in Jesus’ day divided up the Hebrew Scriptures into 3 divisions: the Law, the
Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44). Jeremiah’s book of prophecy was at times placed
first in this section called ‘the Prophets’ and the whole division was called by the name of
its first book. Thus, Zechariah’s writings could be referred to as being a part of Jeremiah,
meaning it was from that division.

We have a similar example in our modern day of a group being named after its first
element. In the periodic table of chemical elements, there are two series of elements each
containing a number of the elements. Each series is named after the first element in the
series – the lanthanide series after lanthanum and the actinide series after actinium.

2. Thirty pieces of silver

According to Matthew 26:15, the chief priests "weighed out thirty pieces of silver" to
give to Judas. There are two things wrong with this:

a. There were no "pieces of silver" used as currency in Jesus' time - they had gone out of
circulation about 300 years before.

The gospel accounts refer repeatedly to silver coins in use (Matthew 10:9; 25:18, 27;
28:12, 15; Luke 15:8, 9 (drachma is defined as ‘a silver coin’ in Thayer’s Greek English
Lexicon); Acts 8:20). First-century silver coins have been unearthed in present-day
Palestine (see Bible coins) and their usage at that time is well documented. Now we are
in that realm of pure fiction that Mr. Carlson was referring to.

b. In Jesus' time, minted coins were used - currency was not "weighed out."

By using phrases that made sense in Zechariah's time but not in Jesus' time Matthew once
again gives away the fact that he creates events in his gospel to match "prophecies" he
finds in the Old Testament.

Most English translations of Matthew 26:15 say that the chief priests ‘gave him’, ‘settled
with him for’, ‘paid him’, ‘counted out’ the money. The Greek verb used here, istemi,
means “set, fix” (Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon) and does not necessarily refer to
weighing something out.

3. Who bought the Field of Blood?

a. In Matthew 27:7 the chief priests buy the field.

b. In Acts 1:18 Judas buys the field.

This merely illustrates the principle of agency. For example, if we were to hear a news
reporter on the television telling us what the president of the United States said, we could
state any of the following describing it and be correct: “The television said …”, “The
news reporter said …”, or “The president said …”. In a similar sense, Judas bought the
field because it was his money that was used; the chief priests were the agents in
accomplishing the purchase.

4. How did Judas die?

a. In Matthew 27:5 Judas hangs himself.

b. In Acts 1:18 he bursts open and his insides spill out.

Both are true. Judas hung himself by the edge of a cliff, the rope broke, and he burst
apart upon hitting the rocks or ground below.

c. According to the apostle Paul, neither of the above is true. Paul says Jesus appeared to
"the twelve" after his resurrection. Mark 14:20 makes it clear that Judas was one of the
twelve.

The term ‘the twelve’ came to be a title referring to the group of apostles at the center of
the Christian organization. The group still retained this name even though one of its
members had died.

In Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells the twelve disciples, including Judas, that when Jesus rules
from his throne, they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

The group Jesus is talking to is the disciples, not just the apostles (Matthew 19:25). He
predicates those sitting on the twelve thrones as ones ‘who have followed him’, thus
ruling out Judas’ inclusion since “he who has endured to the end is the one that will be
saved (Matthew 24:13).

5. How did the Field of Blood get its name?

a. Matthew says because it was purchased with blood money (Matthew 27:6-8).

b. Acts says because of the bloody mess caused by Judas' bursting open (Acts 1:18-19).

Acts 1:18 talks about Judas purchasing the field with his ‘wages of unrighteousness’ and
then bursting apart. Verse 19 then states: “It also became known to all the inhabitants of
Jerusalem so that that field was called in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of
Blood.” So the questions are “What does the ‘It’ in Acts 1:19 mean? Does it refer to the
purchase using the wages of unrighteousness or the bursting of Judas’ body?” Matthew
27:6-8 shows that it refers to the ‘wages of unrighteousness’, the ‘price of blood’.

IV. JESUS' TRIALS, DEATH AND

RESURRECTION
A. THE TRIALS
Before listing the contradictions regarding the trials of Jesus, it should be stated that the
whole episode is quite obviously a fabrication. Anyone familiar with Jewish law
recognizes the impossibility of the chief priests and scribes arresting Jesus and
assembling to question him during the most holy of Jewish festivals.

Anyone familiar with the Bible and Jewish history would recognize how typical of the
chief priests and scribes this would sort of behavior would be.

The Jewish religious leaders had no qualms in harming those they viewed as opponents
or inferiors no matter how holy the occasion. Note this quote from Jewish tradition of the
early centuries at the time of Christ and afterward about how the religious leaders felt
about the common people (‘am ha-arez) and about what they would do during a very
holy festival: “R[abbi] Eleazar said: An ‘am ha-arez, it is permitted to stab him [even] on
the Day of Atonement which falls on the Sabbath.”—Babylonian Talmud, tractate
Pesachim (“Feast of Passover”), folio page 49b.

Notice the other laws the Jews broke in trying and convicting Jesus: False testimony
(Exodus 20:16 and Matthew 26:59-62); conspiracy to commit injustice (Exodus 23:1, 2
and Matthew 26:3, 4); murder (Exodus 20:13 and Acts 6:15; 7:1, 2, 52). Anyone who
would brazenly break all these laws would have no problem doing so on a holy day.

1. Where was Jesus taken immediately after his arrest?

a. Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew
26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54).

b. John says that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John
18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John
18:24).

Matthew, Mark, and Luke say Jesus was arrested and taken to the high priest, but they do
not say they were no stops made before reaching him. John fills in more details by
reporting Jesus being taken to Annas before going to the high priest.

2. When did the priests and scribes gather together to question Jesus?

a. Matthew 26:57 says that on the night Jesus was arrested the priests and scribes were
gathered together prior to Jesus being brought to the high priest.

b. Mark 14:53 says the priests and scribes gathered together on the night of Jesus' arrest
after Jesus was brought to the high priest.

Matthew and Mark are speaking of the same occasion. Matthew does say the priests
were gathered when Jesus was brought to the high priest, while Mark says that ‘all ‘ the
chief priests, older men, and scribes were gathered after Jesus’ arrival. In saying ‘all’,
Mark shows that the entire number did not arrive until after Jesus did. Matthew is noting
that, as a group, they had arrived prior to Jesus.

c. Luke 22:66 says the priests and scribes assembled the day after Jesus was arrested.

Luke, in Luke 22:54, shows that first they went to the high priest’s house. Then, in verse
66, Jesus is ‘haled into the Sanhedrin hall’. This is obviously a different meeting. Does
Carlson even know how to read?

d. John mentions only the high priest - no other priests or scribes play a role in
questioning Jesus.

John’s entire account of Jesus being questioned by the high priest is this: “Then Annas
sent him away bound to Caiaphas the high priest” (John 18:27). Obviously, he does not
mention any other than the high priest because he is giving just a very abbreviated
account of Jesus’ appearance before him. The other gospel writers had already given
sufficient accounts of this incident, and John, writing his gospel after all the rest wrote
their gospels, did not include many details on it.

3. Was Jesus questioned by Herod?

a. Luke says that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod who questioned Jesus at length and then
returned Jesus to Pilate (Luke 23:7-11).

b. Matthew, Mark and John make no mention of Herod. This, in itself, means nothing,
but it brings about another contradiction later.

Mr. Carlson is correct in one respect in regard to Herod’s questioning Jesus: the fact that
it is mentioned by only one gospel writer means nothing. Their purpose in writing was
not to include all the same details. See section 5 below to see how the so-called
contradiction means nothing also.

4. Who was responsible for Jesus' death, Pilate or the Jews?

The gospel writers go to every conceivable length to absolve the Romans in general, and
Pilate in particular, of Jesus' crucifixion and to blame it on the Jews. The reason, of
course, was that Christianity was going to have to exist under Roman rule for many
years, which is why the New Testament contains nothing critical of the Romans, even
though they were hated for their heavy taxation, and Pilate was hated for his brutality.

As far as criticism of the Roman world power, Matthew 4:8-10 shows the Devil claiming
control over all the governments of the world, including Rome. Revelation 13:1-5 does
similarly. But as far as the death of Jesus Christ was concerned, the Romans were just a
convenient tool used by the Jews for their purpose of removing their opponent, so blame
is put on the originators of the crime.
For the church, the Jews made an appropriate scapegoat because the Jews were a thorn in
side of the early church. The Jews, of course, had far greater knowledge of Jewish laws
and traditions than the largely gentile church, and were able to call attention to some of
the errors being taught by the church.

The accounts at Acts 7:1-58; 9:19-22; 13:42-52; 17:1-8; 18:24-28 show who had the
correct knowledge of the scriptures, the Christians or the Jews, and who was exposing the
errors of whom.

The Biblical account of Pilate's offer to release Jesus but the Jews demanding the release
of Barabbas is pure fiction, containing both contradictions and historical inaccuracies.

a. What had Barabbas done?

1. Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 say that Barabbas was guilty of insurrection and murder.

2. John 18:40 says that Barabbas was a robber.

Obviously Barabbas’ regular profession was robbery. He was facing the death penalty
for also committing insurrection and murder.

b. Pilate's "custom" of releasing a prisoner at Passover.

This is pure invention - the only authority given by Rome to a Roman governor in
situations like this was postponement of execution until after the religious festival.
Release was out of the question. It is included in the gospels for the sole purpose of
further removing blame for Jesus' death from Pilate and placing it on the Jews.

The only thing invented here is Mr. Carlson’s supposed knowledge of ancient history. In
light of the strained relations between the Jews and Rome, it is not surprising that the
Romans allowed this Jewish custom. The Passover festival commemorated the sparing of
lives, the ‘passing over’ of the Jews by Jehovah’s angel when he killed the Egyptian
firstborn (Exodus 11:4, 5; 12:23). Releasing a prisoner on this occasion would be fitting.
The Romans themselves had a festival called the Lectisternia where all prisoners were
released (Livy 5, 14; 1st Century CE Roman historian).

c. Pilate gives in to the mob.

The gospels have Pilate giving in to an unruly mob. This is ridiculous in light of Pilate's
previous and subsequent history. Josephus tells us that Pilate's method of crowd control
was to send his soldiers into the mob and beat them (often killing them) into submission.
Pilate was eventually recalled to Rome because of his brutality.

With great ability, Mr. Carlson goes on to fulfill the proverb: “He that is excavating a pit
will fall into the same” (Proverbs 26:27). In this case, while claiming that the Bible’s
account of Pilate’s actions is ridiculous, a closer examination of the scriptures and ancient
history show Mr. Carlson’s conclusions to be what are ridiculous, a word defined as
‘arousing or deserving of ridicule’. In view of the circumstances, as you shall see, Pilate
had no other choice.

The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) refer to Pilate giving in because ‘an
uproar was arising’, ‘to satisfy the crowd’ and ‘because their voices won out’. The
apostle John’s account gives the most detail on why Pilate finally gave in to the crowd.
Pilate originally had no intention of giving in to the crowd, until the Jews said this: “If
you release this man, you are not a friend of Caesar. Every man making himself a king
speaks against Caesar” (John 19:12-16). According to Suetonius, a Roman historian
writing about the year 120 C.E., the Roman emperor at that time, Tiberius, brutally
enforced the law of lèse majesté (“an offense violating the dignity of a ruler as the
representative of a sovereign power”), not only for offenses against himself, but also for
offenses against prior rulers, especially Caesar Augustus. Here is a quotation from
Suetonius’ The Twelve Caesars:

“A praetor asked Tiberius whether, in his opinion, courts should be convened to try cases
of lèse majesté. Tiberius replied that the law must be enforced; and enforce it he did,
most savagely, too. One man was accused of decapitating an image of Augustus with a
view to substituting another head; his case was tried before the Senate and, finding a
conflict of evidence, Tiberius had the witnesses examined under torture. The offender
was sentenced to death, which provided a precedent for farfetched accusations: people
could now be executed for . . . changing their own clothes, close to an image of Augustus,
or for carrying a ring or coin, bearing Augustus’s head, into a privy or a brothel; or for
criticizing anything Augustus had ever said or done. The climax came when a man died
merely for letting an honour be voted him by his native town council on the same day
that honours had once been voted to Augustus.”

In regard to those informing on others in regard to lèse majesté, Suetonius writes:

“Special awards were voted to the informers who had denounced them and, in certain
circumstances, to the witnesses too. An informer’s word was always believed.”

Is it any wonder why Pilate would be afraid of being accused of ‘not being a friend of
Caesar’ because of not punishing someone accused of ‘speaking against Caesar’? Is it
any wonder that he took the action he did?

5. Who put the robe on Jesus?

a. Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and
turned over to his soldiers to be crucified, the soldiers placed a scarlet or purple robe on
Jesus as well as a crown of thorns.

b. Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed
on Jesus much earlier by Herod and his soldiers. Luke mentions no crown of thorns.
These accounts are easy to harmonize. Pilate’s soldiers may have used the garment put
on Jesus prior by Herod and his soldiers after it had been removed for Jesus’ scourging.
Or they could have put a different one on him. Either view would make all accounts
agree.

B. THE CRUCIFIXION
1. Crucified between two robbers

Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers (Luke
just calls them criminals; John simply calls them men). It is a historical fact that the
Romans did not crucify robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and
rebellious slaves.

‘Robbers’ refers to their regular profession, not to the reason for their death on torture
stakes. They were, no doubt, also guilty of insurrection or some other crime meriting this
type of execution.

2. Peter and Mary near the cross

When the gospel writers mention Jesus talking to his mother and to Peter from the cross,
they run afoul of another historical fact - the Roman soldiers closely guarded the places
of execution, and nobody was allowed near (least of all friends and family who might
attempt to help the condemned person).

All of Jesus’ acquaintenances were at a distance (Matthew 27:55, 56; Mark 15:40, 41;
Luke 23:49). Luke’s account says that ‘all acquainted with him were standing at a
distance.’ John 19:26 says that Mary and John were ‘standing by’. ‘Standing by’ is a
participle coming from the Greek word paristemi, which means “the bystanders, the
spectators, those present” (Bauer’s Greek English Lexicon). Thus, they did not have to
be so close as to be considered a security threat. The gospels simply indicate that they
were in hearing distance of Jesus, which could easily have been a ‘safe’ distance.

3. The opened tombs

According to Matthew 27:51-53, at the moment Jesus died there was an earthquake that
opened tombs and many people were raised from the dead. For some reason they stayed
in their tombs until after Jesus was resurrected, at which time they went into Jerusalem
and were seen by many people.

Here Matthew gets too dramatic for his own good. If many people came back to life and
were seen by many people, it must have created quite a stir (even if the corpses were in
pretty good shape!). Yet Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening -
historians of that time certainly know nothing of it - neither do the other gospel writers.
Some modern translations clear up this account. The New World Translation reads in
Matthew 27:52, 53: “And the memorial tombs were opened and many bodies of the holy
ones that had fallen asleep were raised up, (and persons, coming out from among the
memorial tombs after his being raised up, entered into the holy city,) and they became
visible to many people.”

So what occurred is similar to what happened in Popayán, Colombia in 1983, in

Guatemala in 1976, and in Ecuador in 1949. Notice this account about Sonson, Colombia
in 1962. El Tiempo (July 31, 1962) reported: “Two hundred corpses in the cemetery of
this town were thrown out of their tombs by the violent earth tremor.” Persons passing by
or through that cemetery saw the corpses, and, as a result, many of the people in Sonson
had to go out and rebury their dead relatives.

So, according to Matthew, an earthquake caused some graves to toss out the bodies in
them. People visiting the graves after Jesus’ resurrection saw the bodies and came into
Jerusalem and told others. They could not have done so any sooner because the Sabbath
intervened between the earthquake and Jesus’ resurrection, and the Jews could only travel
short distances on the Sabbath, up to 3,000 feet (Acts 1:12).

C. THE RESURRECTION
1. Who found the empty tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."

b. According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and
Salome."

c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of
Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother
of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.

d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone
removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.

See 2 below for comments.

2. Who did they find at the tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning
was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that
Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew
28:9). Evidently, the angel sat on the stone to frighten away the guards, who initially fell
to the ground. After the angel had disappeared and the guards ran away, then the women
arrived at the tomb. See below for harmonization of accounts.
b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.

c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were
inside the tomb or outside of it.

d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an
empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings.
Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in
white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.

Just because some accounts only mention some of the women who went to the tomb does
not mean there were not others with them. The fact that one account mentions 2 angels
inside the tomb and another account mentions only 1 is similar. Each gospel writer
included details he deemed necessary. All these accounts can be harmonized as follows:

Early Sunday morning Mary Magdalene and some other women approach Jesus’ tomb.
But the stone in front of the tomb has been rolled away. Upon looking inside, they see no
body. Mary Magdalene rushes off to tell Peter and John. No sooner has she left than 2
angels appear to the other women. One says: “Do not you be fearful.” He also urges: “Go
quickly and tell his disciples that he was raised up from the dead.” As they hurry along,
whom do they meet but Jesus himself! “Go, report to my brothers,” he tells them.

After Mary Magdalene tells Peter and John, they come to the tomb, find nothing, and
then leave. After that, Mary Magdalene is at the tomb weeping when she finds the two
angels, and then, Jesus appears to her. She can barely contain her joy and rushes off to
tell the other disciples the wonderful news.

3. Who did the women tell about the empty tomb?

a. According to Mark 16:8, "they said nothing to anyone."

b. According to Matthew 28:8, they "ran to report it to His disciples."

c. According to Luke 24:9, "they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest."

d. According to John 20:18, Mary Magdalene announces to the disciples that she has seen
the Lord.

Mark 16:8 tells of the initial reaction of the group of women who first spoke to the angels
(that is, the entire group minus Mary Magdalene, who went off to tell Peter and John).
They were afraid to tell anyone, probably knowing they would not be believed since a
woman’s testimony was not considered admissible as evidence in their society. They
overcame this initial fear and went and told the disciples what they saw, and, as they had
initially feared, they were not believed. Mary Magdalene came later and told what she
saw.
V. THE ASCENSION
According to Luke 24:51, Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his
resurrection.

According to Acts 1:9-12, Jesus' ascension took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after
his resurrection.

Different translations clear this up. Luke 24:51 reads in the New International Version:
“When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany”. The Jerusalem Bible reads:
“Then he took them out as far as the outskirts of Bethany”. Bethany is on the eastern
slope of the Mount of Olives. His ascension took place on the western slope, about 3000
feet from the walls of Jerusalem (Acts 1:12).

Luke’s account does not say the ascension took place the same day as his resurrection,
but simply mentions ‘When he had led them out’, but not specifying when that ‘when’
was.

VI. MISCELLANEOUS
A. THE UNCHANGEABLE LAW
According to Matthew 5:18, Jesus said that not the tiniest bit of the Law could be
changed. However, in Mark 7:19 Jesus declares that all foods are clean, thereby
drastically changing the Law.

The church tries to get around this obvious contradiction by artificially separating the
Mosaic Law into the "ceremonial" law and the "moral" law, a separation which would
have abhorred the Jews of Jesus' time. The Mark passage and similar ones like Acts 10:9-
16 were added to accommodate the teaching of Paul regarding the Law (which was
diametrically opposed to the teaching of Jesus on the Law) and to make the gospel
palatable to the Gentiles.

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law. When a prophecy has been
fulfilled, its purpose has been achieved. Its prophecy has become history. The ending of
Matthew 5:18 clarifies the meaning of the first part of that verse where Jesus says none of
the Law will pass away. The ending states that the Law will stand “until its purpose is
complete” (Phillips); “until all is accomplished” (Revised Standard Version).

When Jesus died, among his last words were: “It has been accomplished” (John 19:30).
Other parts of the Bible tell us that Christ ended the Law and laid the basis for it to set
aside. “But now the Law has come to an end with Christ” (Romans 10:4 – Jerusalem
Bible); “He has overridden the Law … done away with it by nailing it to the cross”
(Colossians 2:14 – Jerusalem Bible). He thus brought the purpose of the Law to its
completion so it could be put aside and replaced with what the Bible calls ‘the law of the
Christ’ (Galatians 6:2).

The Mosaic Law was not to be viewed as split into 2 parts. The apostle Paul viewed the
Ten Commandments as being part of the Law that had passed away (Romans 7:6, 7); he
also quotes Leviticus 19:18 (not a part of the Ten Commandments) as being included in
the Law (Rom 13:9). He thus viewed the Law as a whole.

B. NO SIGNS, ONE SIGN, OR MANY SIGNS?

At one point the Pharisees come to Jesus and ask him for a sign.

In Mark 8:12 Jesus says, "No sign shall be given to this generation."

The gospel of Mark is characterized by it succinctness. This is just another example of

that. Matthew contains a fuller account of the incident.

2. In contradiction to Mark, in Matthew 12:39 Jesus says that only one sign would be
given - the sign of Jonah. Jesus says that just as Jonah spent three days and three nights in
the belly of the whale, so he will spend three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth. Here Jesus makes an incorrect prediction - he only spends two nights in the tomb
(Friday and Saturday nights), not three nights.

3. In contradiction to both Mark and Matthew, the gospel of John speaks of many signs
that Jesus did:

a. The miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana is called the beginning
(or first) of the signs that Jesus did (John 2:11).

b. The healing at Capernaum is the "second sign" (John 4:54).

c. Many people were following Jesus "because they were seeing the signs He was
performing" (John 6:2).

Obviously, the scribes and Pharisees who asked Jesus for a sign were well aware of his
other signs. What they really wanted was a sign showing that Jesus was the one fulfilling
Daniel 7:13, 14 where someone like a son of man approaches Jehovah, the Ancient of
Days, and is granted rulership over all mankind. This was something to come much later,
so Jesus told them the sign that would identify his coming the first time – his death and
resurrection. Paul makes a similar statement, saying: “the Jews ask for signs … but we
preach Christ impaled” (1 Corinthians 1:22, 23).

Showing that this is what the Jews really expected of the Messiah, note this quote from
The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 10, p. 29 commenting on 1 Corinthians 1:22, 23:
“Jewish religious hopes in the days of Paul were based on apocalyptic expectation of a
dramatic, catastrophic deliverance from Roman oppressors: they looked for a deliverer
who would make the nation supreme among the nations of the world. Part of their deep
disappointment in Jesus in the days of his flesh is directly traceable to his refusal to give
to the nation military leadership, after the style of the Maccabees. In Paul’s day Palestine
was like a banked fire. Rome procurators were able to extinguish the licking flames of
sporadic, local insurrection; but the banked fire was a different matter. Had Jesus at the
height of his popularity but given the word, thousands of swords would have leaped from
their scabbards, and Rome might have been hard put to it to contain the eruption of the
pent-up religious idealism and fanatical nationalism of the Jews. To a people whose
imagination and spirit were fired by such ideas and such apocalyptic hopes the sign of a
‘Christ crucified’ was an unspeakable offense. To them the word of the cross was an
utterly repellent thing. They would have none of it.”

Note the testimony of a present day Jewish source. The Jewish Encyclopedia observes:
“They yearned for the promised deliverer of the house of David, who would free them
from the yoke of the hated foreign usurper, would put an end to the impious Roman rule,
and would establish His own reign of peace.” (1976, Vol. VIII, p. 508)

As far as Jesus being in the tomb ‘3 days and 3 nights’ (Matt 12:40) and then being
resurrected on the third day, this is easily understandable according to how the term ‘day
and night’ is used in the Bible to refer to, at times, a portion of a 24-hour day. Notice in
Esther 4:16 how a period of 3 days and nights is mentioned and how in 5:1 the end of this
period is referred to as ‘the third day’ (similar examples are Gen 42:17,18; 1 Ki 12:5, 12;
Matt 27:62-64). Thus, Jesus died on Friday, and was dead until Sunday morning when he
was resurrected, a period consisting of portions of 3 days.

C. SON OF DAVID?
Matthew, Mark and Luke all contain passages which have Jesus quoting Psalm 110:1 to
argue that the Messiah does not need to be a son of David (Matthew 22:41-46, Mark
12:35-37 and Luke 20:41-44).

1. This contradicts many Old Testament passages that indicate that the Messiah will be a
descendant of David. It also contradicts official church doctrine.

2. In Acts 2:30-36 Peter, in what is regarded as the first Christian sermon, quotes Psalm
110:1 in arguing that Jesus was the Messiah, a descendant of David.

Jesus’ discussion about Psalm 110:1 does not argue that the Messiah is not the son of
David. Jesus is simply giving the Pharisees a question that they cannot answer: How can
the Messiah be both David’s Lord and his son at the same time? Jesus had just silenced
the party followers of Herod (Matthew 22: 16, 22) and the Sadducees (Matthew 22:23,
34), and now used this question to silence the Pharisees (Matthew 22:46), exposing their
ignorance of something that they as religious leaders and teachers should have known.
D. THE FIG TREE
After Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem a sees a fig tree and wants some figs from it.
He finds none on it so he curses the tree and it withers and dies (Matthew 21:18-20, Mark
11:12-14, 20-21).

Since this occurred in the early spring before Passover, it is ridiculous of Jesus to expect
figs to be on the tree.

It was unseasonably early for the tree to have leaves also. Seeing that it was early as to
having leaves, Jesus went to investigate if it was early as to having figs also.

2. Matthew and Mark cannot agree on when the tree withered.

a. In Matthew, the tree withers at once and the disciples comment on this fact (Matthew
21:19-20).

b. In Mark, the tree is not found to be withered until at least the next day (Mark 11:20-
21).

The fig tree withered instantly and noticeably. But the following day, they noticed it
‘withered up from the roots’ (Mark 11:20) and remarked on that. Evidently, the initial
withering was not to the degree of what had occurred by the following day. Perhaps the
first withering was of the leaves only, and that on the following day was of the entire tree,
‘from the roots’, being evidenced by withered tree branches also.

E. THE GREAT COMMISSION

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus tells the eleven disciples to "go therefore and make disciples of
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

1. This is obviously a later addition to the gospel, for two reasons:

a. It took the church over two hundred years of fighting (sometimes bloody) over the
doctrine of the trinity before this baptismal formula came into use. Had it been in the
original gospel, there would have been no fighting.

This scripture does not teach the trinity for nowhere does it say that the three mentioned
are co-equal or co-eternal or share the same degree of authority, which is what the heart
of the trinity doctrine is. This scripture is simply stating that those baptized need to
recognize the authority of the Father, Son, and holy spirit. The Greek word for name is
onoma. It is used in the phrase ‘in the name of’, meaning ‘to recognize and publicly
acknowledge the dignity and authority of one’ (Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon, under
onoma). The first part of Matthew 28:19 talks about making disciples and the Greek
word for disciple means ‘learner, pupil’ (Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon under
mathetes). Thus, those to be baptized would need to be taught to recognize the authority
that each, of these three, would have in their lives.

The fact that ‘name’ is only used once in this scripture and applied to the Father, Son, and
holy spirit, does not imply that they all have the same degree of authority. We could
regard this as an example of the figure of speech known as "THE ELLIPSIS OF
REPETITION: Where the omitted word or words is or are to be supplied out of the
preceding or following clause, in order to complete the sense" (Figures of Speech Used in
the Bible, Bullinger, p. 70). In this case, we would supply the words "in the name of"
before "Son" and "holy spirit" in Matt 28:19.

b. In Acts, when people are baptized, they are baptized just in the name of Jesus (Acts
8:16, 10:48, 19:5). Peter says explicitly that they are to "Repent, and let each of you be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38).

Jesus’ command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and holy spirit was not some
kind of incantation to utter during baptism. As just discussed, it was an awareness to be
taught to Christians before their baptism. The fact that baptisms were done ‘in the name
of Jesus Christ’ does not mean those baptized did not recognize the authority of the
Father and holy spirit also. Baptizing ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ became the common
description used.

2. This contradicts Jesus' earlier statement that his message was for the Jews only
(Matthew 10:5-6, 15:24). The gospels, and especially Acts, have been edited to play this
down, but the contradiction remains. It was the apostle Paul who, against the express
wishes of Jesus, extended the gospel (Paul's version) to the gentiles.

During the time Jesus was on earth, the message was for Jews only, as Jesus stated. But
he intended for a change to be made after his death, for Gentiles to hear the message, and
he made preparation for this in Matthew 28:19, 20, and, in fact, even earlier, when he
predicted this universal preaching work in Matthew 24:14. Acts chapter 10 shows how
God directed the preaching to change in this regard. Jesus notes in John 16:12, 13 that he
only revealed things to his disciples when they were able to bear them. Preaching to
Gentiles was a repulsive idea to Jews of that day, as Acts chapter 10 shows, and so Jesus
arranged for the change to take place at a time when the disciples would be more
prepared for it. Any supposed later editing of the gospels and Acts occurred only in Mr.
Carlson’s mind.

F. ENOCH IN THE BOOK OF JUDE

Jude 14 contains a prophecy of Enoch. Thus, if the Book of Jude is the Word of God,
then the writings of "Enoch" from which Jude quotes are also the Word of God. The
Book of Enoch was used in the early church until at least the third century - Clement,
Irenaeus and Tertullian were familiar with it. However, as church doctrine began to
solidify, the Book of Enoch became an embarrassment to the church and in a short period
of time it became the Lost Book of Enoch. A complete manuscript of the Book of Enoch
was discovered in Ethiopia in 1768. Since then, portions of at least eight separate copies
have been found among the Dead Sea scrolls. It is easy to see why the church had to get
rid of Enoch - not only does it contain fantastic imagery (some of which was borrowed by
the Book of Revelation), but it also contradicts church doctrine on several points (and,
since it is obviously the work of several writers, it also contradicts itself).

Jude 14 quotes a prophecy from Enoch, a man living before the flood of Noah’s day, but
it does not say it came from the Book of Enoch. That the Book of Enoch contains the
same prophecy is probably due to the fact that the book of Jude and the Book of Enoch
both quoted from a common source, now lost. That a Bible book quotes from a source
does not make that source inspired of God, but only guarantees that the portion of the
source that is quoted is accurate. Notice how Paul even quoted pagan Greek poets in Acts
17:28.

G. THE APOSTLE PAUL'S CONVERSION

The Book of Acts contains three accounts of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus.
All of three accounts contradict each other regarding what happened to Paul's fellow
travelers.

1. Acts 9:7 says they "stood speechless, hearing the voice..."

2. Acts 22:9 says they "did not hear the voice..."

3. Acts 26:14 says, "when we had all fallen to the ground..."

These accounts are easily harmonized by taking the view that everyone fell to the ground
after the bright flash of light, the voice started speaking, and then, while the voice was
still speaking, everyone but Paul got up – he not doing so because (duh!!) he alone was
blinded by the light.

Some translations of the Bible (the New International Version and the New American
Standard, for example) try to remove the contradiction in Acts 22:9 by translating the
phrase quoted above as "did not understand the voice..." However, the Greek word
"akouo" is translated 373 times in the New Testament as "hear," "hears," "hearing" or
"heard" and only in Acts 22:9 is it translated as "understand." In fact, it is the same word
that is translated as "hearing" in Acts 9:7, quoted above. The word "understand" occurs
52 times in the New Testament, but only in Acts 22:9 is it translated from the Greek word
"akouo."

This is an example of Bible translators sacrificing intellectual honesty in an attempt to

reconcile conflicting passages in the New Testament.

The meanings of these verses, Acts 9:7 and 22:9, are discernible from the Greek. Acts
9:7 reads, akouontes test phones, literally “hearing of the voice”, the word ‘voice’, phone,
being in the genitive case (closest in meaning to the possessive case in English). Acts
22:9 reads, phonen ouk ekousan, literally “voice not they heard”, the word for ‘voice’
being in the accusative case (closest to objective case in English).

This difference is highlighted in one of the standard Greek grammars, A Grammar of the
New Testament in Light of Historical Research (A.T. Robertson): “But it is perfectly
proper to appeal to the distinction in the cases in the apparent contradiction between
akouontes men tes phones (Ac. 9:7) and ten de phonen ouk ekousan (22:9). The
accusative (case of extent) accents the intellectual apprehension of the sound, while the
genitive (specifying case) calls attention to the sound of the voice without accenting the
sense. The word akouo itself has two senses which fall in well with this case-distinction,
one ‘to hear’, the other ‘understand’.”

Thus, in Act 9:7 Paul notes that those around him heard ‘the sound of someone’s voice’
but did not understand it, while in Acts 22:9 he says that they did not ‘hear
(understandingly) the voice’.

H. JESUS CALLS THE DISCIPLES

1. In Matthew 4:18-22 and Mark 1:16-20, Peter and Andrew are casting nets into the sea.
Jesus calls out to them and they leave their nets and follow him. Jesus then goes on a
little further and sees James and John mending their nets with their father. He calls to
them and they leave their father and follow him.

2. In Luke 5:1-11, Jesus asks Peter to take him out in Peter's boat so Jesus can preach to
the multitude. James and John are in another boat. When Jesus finishes preaching, he tells
Peter how to catch a great quantity of fish (John 21:3-6 incorporates this story in a post-
resurrection appearance). After Peter catches the fish, he and James and John are so
impressed that after they bring their boats to shore they leave everything and follow
Jesus.

Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts are abbreviated in that they tell of each of the two groups
leaving fishing and following Jesus. Luke’s account provides more details, showing that
after Jesus found them on shore, they went out and fished, and then they left off fishing to
follow Jesus.

3. In John 1:35-42, Andrew hears John the Baptist call Jesus the Lamb of God. Andrew
then stays with Jesus for the remainder of the day and then goes to get his brother Peter
and brings him to meet Jesus.

This is obviously a different occasion, when these disciples first met Jesus. The accounts
in the synoptic gospels commented on above probably took place almost a year later, as
any harmony of the gospels would show.

I. SHOULD THE TWELVE DISCIPLES TAKE

STAFFS?
When Jesus summons the twelve disciples to send them out to proclaim the kingdom of
God, he lists the things the disciples should not take with them.

1. In Matthew 10:9-10 and Luke 9:3-5, a staff is included in the list of things not to take.

2. In contradiction to Matthew and Luke, Mark 6:8 makes a specific exception - the
disciples may take a staff.

Everyone journeying in the Middle East then used a staff, just as much as they wore
sandals. Matthew 10:10 includes sandals along with a staff as things not to procure, that
is, not to buy additional supplies of. Obviously, when he tells them not to procure
sandals, he is not telling them not to wear them at all. Could you imagine them trying to
walk long distances without sandals? Luke’s account has a similar meaning.

Mark wrote with a Roman audience in mind, and included more explanatory material for
his readers who would not be as familiar with customs in the Middle East. Thus, he
spelled it out more plainly for them, writing, ‘carry nothing for the trip except a staff
alone’.

J. THE APOSTLE PAUL GETS CONFUSED

A PUZZLED PAUL (CARLSON) GETS
A better title:
CONFUSED (so what else is new?)
In Romans 7:1-6 the apostle Paul tries to compare a Christian's "dying to the Law" to a
woman who marries again after her husband has died. In doing so, Paul gets hopelessly
confused about whether the Christian corresponds to the wife (by being released from the
Law), or corresponds to the husband (by having died). One scholar has referred to the
passage as "remarkably muddle-headed." This just goes to show that, although a brilliant
man, Paul did have his bad days.

In Paul’s reasoning in Romans 7:1-6, he does not go on to produce an exact

correspondence between a woman marrying after her husband dies and a Jewish
Christian’s no longer being under the Law. He is simply making the point that the one (a
husband’s dying or a Jewish Christian’s no longer being under the Law) produces a
similar effect in each case (the wife being freed from her husband’s law or a Jewish
Christian being released from the Mosaic Law). His illustration is not meant to be
understood in a way that each element in the first example corresponds to an element in
the second. Paul never says that it is meant to be understood in that way.

In view of the foregoing, however, it is evident that the Paul who is confused is Paul
Carlson. It seems Mr. Carlson was having a bad day when he tried to understand this
passage of scripture, or perhaps even a series of bad days, weeks, or months when he was
concocting this entire ludicrous attack on the Bible. Why doesn’t he give up and stick to
his day job of squeegeeing car windows at stoplights?
K. THE SECOND COMING
1. During the disciples' lifetime

There are several passages in the gospels where Jesus says he will return in the disciples'
lifetime (Mark 13:30, Matthew 10:23, 16:28, 24:34, Luke 21:32, etc.).

Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are prophecies with two fulfillments, one in the first
century and another before the end of the worldwide aion, or ‘system of things’. The first
fulfillment was experienced by the generation Jesus spoke to (the unbelieving Jews –
compare Matthew 12:39; 16:4) and the second fulfillment will be experienced by another
generation of unbelievers.

The disciples’ not ‘tasting death before seeing the Kingdom of God’ in Matthew 16:28
was fulfilled in their witnessing the transfiguration. This is shown in Luke’s account
(Luke 9:27, 28) where, after making the statement about their not dying, a period of 8
days is marked off till the promise’s fulfillment.

In Matthew 10:23, Jesus’ words are meant for all his followers of that day and thereafter,
just as the commission he gave in Matthew 28:19, 20 is also. Matthew 28:19, 20 even
mentions its being valid right down to the ‘conclusion of the system of things’, or ‘end of
the age’. To accommodate his followers’ limited perception of things (John 16:12, 13),
he at times used Israel as a symbol of the entire world. Thus in Matthew 19:28, Jesus
says they would ‘sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel’, while in 1
Corinthians 6:2 we are told that Christ’s disciples will judge the world and in Revelation
5:9, 10 they will rule over the earth. Thus, in Matthew 10:23, Israel symbolizes the entire
earth. Before his disciples in every part give a thorough witness, Christ will return to
punish and reward.

The same expectation held during the period the apostle Paul wrote his letters. In 1
Corinthians 7:29-31 Paul says that the time is so short that believers should drastically
change the way that they live. But Paul had a problem - some believers had died, so what
would happen to them when Jesus returned?

In 1 Corinthians 7:29, Paul says the time is reduced (Greek, synestalmenos), meaning
reduced since they have become believers since time is marching on (compare Romans
13:11). Thus, they should change the way they live. They only have so much time to
help others by preaching the good news (Matthew 28:19, 20) and so should use the time
they have left to the best advantage.

Paul's answer in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 shows that Paul expected that at least some of
those he was writing to would be alive when Jesus returned - "we who are alive, and
remain..." The same passage also indicates that Paul believed that those believers who
had died remained "asleep in Jesus" until he returned. However, as the delay in Jesus'
return grew longer, the location of Jesus' kingdom shifted from earth to heaven and we
later find Paul indicating that when believers die they will immediately "depart and be
with Christ" (Philippians 1:23).

Note that in mentioning who will go to heaven, Paul says, “we the living who are
surviving” (1Thess 4:15, 17). He speaks in behalf of all true Christians with the heavenly
hope, pointing out that only those who ‘survive to the presence (‘coming’ in many
Bibles) of the Lord’ will experience being ‘caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the
air’. True Christians yet on earth, of whom he speaks, still await this experience.

Jesus taught that his apostles would be with him in heaven, not on the earth (John 14:2,
3). Paul and others simply clarified Jesus’ teaching on this and did not change it.
Philippians 1:23 does not say being with Christ in heaven immediately follows the
departing from this life in death. Jesus showed that death is a sleep (John 11:11-14).
Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:23, as in 1 Thessalonians 4:15, shows that the heavenly
resurrection does not occur until Christ’s presence. Paul in Philippians 1:23 was
speaking of the ultimate destination he hoped for after dying.

It is quite obvious that Jesus never intended to start any type of church structure since he
believed he would return very shortly to rule his kingdom in person. It is also quite
obvious that Jesus was wrong about when he was coming back.

Jesus, in Matthew 16:18 and 18:17 speaks of ‘his congregation’ and ‘the congregation’.
He obviously intended his followers to be together in this arrangement.

2. The earth in the Book of Revelation

Revelation 1:7 says that when Jesus comes with the clouds, everybody on earth will see
him. Some Christians have said that this will be literally fulfilled because the event will
be broadcast by satellite over all the world's TV stations (We interrupt this broadcast...).
Actually, the passage reflects the flat-earth cosmology of the time, as does also "the four
corners of the earth" in Revelation 7:1 and 20:8.

Clouds denote invisibility (Acts 1:9) and being in the spirit realm (Dan 7:13, 14 where
the ‘son of man coming with the clouds’ is in the presence of God). ‘Every eye seeing
him’ can refer to mental perception (Ephesians 1:18 – ‘the eyes of your heart’). This
scripture refers to worldwide acknowledgement of Christ’s return to destroy the wicked,
not a visible sighting (compare Matthew 24:30 where all on the earth ‘see the sign of the
Son of man’ and also ‘see the Son of man’, equating seeing a sign or indication of his
return to seeing the Son of man himself).

The Bible teaches that the world is round, for Isaiah 40:22 refers to the ‘circle of the
earth’, the Hebrew word hhug being defined as ‘circle, sphere’ (Wilson’s Old Testament
Word Studies, under ‘Circle’).

The term ‘four corners of the earth’ is still in use today, yet no one now believes the earth
is flat. Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, under corner, defines
‘four corners of the earth’ as ‘everywhere’. Why should we fault the Bible writers for
using the same terminology we still do? It is simply referring to the four compass points.

Here, and in many gospel passages, Jesus is spoken of as coming with or on the clouds.
This is because the Bible's view of heaven is "up" and Jesus has to pass through the
clouds to get back, just as in Acts 1:9 Jesus ascended up through a cloud.

‘Heaven’ is an area outside of the earth, so in relation to people on earth, and from their
viewpoint, it is ‘up’. Shouldn’t a book be written in a way that describes things so that
they are understandable from the viewpoint of its intended readers?

3. The Book of Daniel

The Book of Daniel is included here because, after the Book of Revelation, Daniel is the
book most studied with regard to the second coming. Christians are very impressed with
the detailed prophecies in Daniel that have been fulfilled. Anybody would be, if they
believed that Daniel was written during the Babylonian exile, as the book of Daniel says.

However, the book itself makes it possible to pinpoint the date of its writing as 167 BC.
How? Because up to that year all of Daniel's detailed prophecies came true. After that
year none of them did. But how was Daniel to know that shortly after he wrote his book
one of the greatest events in Israel's history, the Maccabean revolution that defeated
Antiochus Epiphanes, would occur?

Mr. Carlson surely could not have read understandably much of the book of Daniel
himself, but must be parroting (Paulie want a cracker?) someone else. One of the most
outstanding prophecies of the book of Daniel (9:24-27) was fulfilled in the first century
C.E. at the appearance of Christ. It was so well known that people in that time period
were expectant of the Messiah (Luke 3:15). Even a Jewish scholar, Abba Hillel Silver,
admitted that according to “the popular chronology” of the day, “the Messiah was
expected around the second quarter of the first century C.E.”

Careful Bible students also find that parts of Daniel chapters 2, 7, 8, 11 and 12 find
fulfillment long after the times of the Maccabees. See the book, Pay Attention to
Daniel’s Prophecy! available from Jehovah’s Witnesses.

VII. THE CAUSES OF THE

CONTRADICTIONS
There are four primary causes for most of the contradictions listed above:

There is really only one cause for Mr. Carlson’s list of supposed contradictions: a desire
to disprove the validity of the scriptures no matter how stupid you end up looking when
exposed.
A. THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
The gospel writers (especially Matthew) tried to show that Jesus was the Messiah by
having him fulfill Old Testament "prophecies," sometimes with absurd results (as in the
case of the "two donkeys" and the "thirty pieces of silver").

Looking back at the two examples he mentions here (sections I.F and III.C.2), it is not
hard to see who produces the absurd results – it is Mr. Carlson. His lack of
understanding of basic Greek grammar and first-century Palestinian history – saying
there were no silver coins in first-century Palestine – without a doubt fit the definition of
absurd, which is “ridiculously unreasonable”. Why do the adjectives idiotic, moronic,
imbecilic, and pea-brained also come to mind?

B. THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JESUS' AND

PAUL'S GOSPELS
The gospel that Jesus and his disciples proclaimed to the Jews was in accordance with
what the Old Testament predicted about a human Messiah reigning over a restored
kingdom of Israel, a kingdom of peace and righteousness. The people of Israel were to
repent, as personal righteousness was necessary to become a member of the kingdom.

In contrast to Jesus' gospel was the gospel preached to the Jews and gentiles by the
apostle Paul, which Paul refers to as "my gospel" and "the gospel that I preach" to
differentiate it from what was being proclaimed by the disciples. In Paul's gospel the
human Jewish Messiah became a divine savior of all nations, the restored kingdom of
Israel became a heavenly kingdom, and admittance to the kingdom was based on faith
rather than personal righteousness.

This is all baseless conjecture. Jesus taught the same as Paul. Notice Jesus’ teachings in
the gospels: The Messiah would be in heaven (John 6:38, 61, 62; 14:2, 3, 12; 20:17). He
would reign over all the earth (Matthew 24:30, 31; 25:31-46; 28:19, 20). Faith is
necessary to enter the kingdom and gain eternal life (John 3:14-16; 36; 6:29, 47; 10:25,
26).

The two gospels caused great animosity between Paul and the original apostles, an
animosity that is played down in the books of Acts and Galatians, but which still shows
through in several places. When Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD the
Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were scattered or killed, and the opposition to the gospel
of Paul was largely eliminated. The gospel of Paul was incorporated into the gospel of
Jesus, in many cases supplanting it.

More conjecture with no basis. As shown above, Paul did not change the gospel that
Jesus taught. As to the fate of Christians in Jerusalem during its destruction in 70 C.E.,
the only historical record of their eventuality is made by the third century historian
Eusebius, who wrote concerning that time period: “The whole body, however, of the
church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a divine revelation . . . removed from
the city, and dwelt at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella.”

C. THE DELAY IN JESUS' RETURN

As time went by without Jesus returning, the apostle Paul was forced to rethink things he
had written about earlier, including the state of dead believers and the nature of the
kingdom.

More conjecture based on reasonings that have been disproved above.

D. CREATING A HISTORY FIT FOR A GOD

When Jesus was changed from a Jewish "son of David" sitting on David's throne to a
divine "son of God" sitting on a heavenly throne, it became necessary to invent a godlike
biography for him. Thus the troublesome virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, etc.

The list of contradictions in this paper is by no means complete, the examples being
chosen primarily from the gospels. The examples given above, however, more than prove
the point that the Bible is most definitely not, in any sense, the Word of God. The church
has made imaginative (and often absurd) attempts to reconcile these contradictions. None
of these attempts have the ring of truth - instead they have the ring of desperation.

Review the list of supposed contradictions above and the refutations for each, and decide
for yourself whether Mr. Carlson’s words are in any sense credible or even intellectually
honest. Whose attempts at proving his point have been shown to be imaginative, often
absurd, and having a ring of desperation?

Having read our defense of attacks against the Bible, it would only be fair for you to
consider evidence that points to the Bible as a book worthy of trust and reliance. The
book, The Bible – God’s Word or Man’s, is outstanding in this regard and can be
obtained in most major languages from Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout the world.

[* Be advised that the Internet Infidels has not been able to confirm some of these claims about Mithraism.
Mithraism does predate Christianity (in at least two distinctly different forms, Persian and Greco-Roman),
did become one of Christianity's rivals, and did have a large center in Tarsus in Paul's day. Mithras was the
son of a God, a savior figure, and believers did gain eternal life (though it took at least seven initiations to
get all the way to heaven), and did have some sort of communal meal. But whether Mithras "died and was
resurrected" is hard to confirm, as is his virgin birth, and we do not know Mr. Carlson's source for his quote
from the Mithraic liturgy and thus cannot confirm either its date or authenticity. Even if authentic, one
would then have to rule out influence from Christianity before asserting this as predating the Christian
formula.]

Paul Carlson <pjcarlsn@ix.netcom.com>