Then shall the lame man leap as an hart (Acts 3)

Well, Acts chapter three has no contradictions listed, so this should be easier than the last two. The chapter opens with Peter and John meeting a lame man begging at the gate of Jerusalem. Peter decides to perform a miracle and heal the man's legs. The man goes with them to the Temple, where they draw a crowd because people recognize the formerly lame man. Peter tells the crowd they shouldn't be amazed, because he healed the man by the power of the Son of God. Peter tells the crowd that they were responsible for turning Jesus over to Pilate (which is a bit harsh, and perhaps presumptuous) but at least they did it out of ignorance. He tells them that all of it was foretold by the prophets, and they should repent and be converted into Christians (actually the word "Christian" hasn't been coined yet, that happens in chapter eleven). Peter reminds them of the prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy 18, identifying Jesus as that prophet, and saying those who do not listen to him will be destroyed. The SAB marks this as intolerant, unjust, and violent, but I really don't think Peter is calling for anyone to be killed, but rather pointing out that Jesus is the only way to salvation. (So count this as a verse against the idea of universal salvation, I guess.) The SAB seems confused about verse 24, but I think Peter is just saying that all of the prophets have at some time spoken about the Messiah, which may not be strictly true, but it's largely correct.

For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath (John 5:1-18)

John chapter five is another story about a miracle, and the fallout from it. It's worth noting that modern scholarship has decided that verse four and the last six words of verse three were likely not in the original manuscript, but were likely added some time later to give clarity to the story, not that the rest of the story doesn't largely imply what verse four is saying.

So there's a feast going on, and Jesus is in Jerusalem. Apparently there's this pool called Bethesda ("house of mercy" in Hebrew) where supposedly people who were sick could get cured. The catch was every once in a while the pool's water would stir up--supposedly due to the action of an angel--and only the first person in the pool got cured. So there's this guy who is probably a paraplegic who's been waiting by the pool for his turn for 38 years. It sounds weird, and a little pathetic, but the pool must have been the real deal, or why keep waiting? Jesus comes up to this guy and asks him if he wants to be healed. The guy doesn't understand what Jesus is really asking him and compains about how difficult it is to get in the pool in his condition without help. Jesus tells him to pick up his bed and leave. He does, as he's healed!

Now there is a problem here, because it's the sabbath. You can't be carrying even little things around, much less a bed. Some Jews, probably some Pharisees, see him with the bed, and tell him he's breaking sabbath law. He explains what just happened, seemingly implying that if a guy heals you and tells you to carry your bed, that's what you do. They question him and it comes out that he doesn't know who Jesus was. Later, he finds Jesus again, finds out his name, and gets an admonition from Jesus to stay away from sin.

The SAB notes that Jesus's admonition implies that, "Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin." There's a problem with this claim. First of all, and most simply, a lot of sins have the potential for bringing you trouble; Jesus may not be saying anything about the cause of the man's illness, but simply is warning him. Secondly, the Bible doesn't specify what exactly was wrong with the man or how he came to be that way, so it's possible that in his specific case, sin led him to be unable to walk. (You could speculate all day. Maybe he was committing adultery with another man's wife and nearly got caught, so he jumped out a window and broke his back. Maybe he stole something, and the person he stole from beat him so severely he couldn't walk. We of course don't know, but there are all sorts of possibilities.)

The man goes back to the people who were angry at him and tells them that it was Jesus who healed him. These Jews get angry at Jesus not just for telling the man to carry his bed, but apparently they even consider healing on the sabbath to be unlawful! Jesus says that God the Father works on the sabbath, and he will, too. Is it necessary to keep the sabbath? Sort of. The Ten Commandments, which include the law of the sabbath, were given to the Jews, so it's primarily a Jewish thing. That being said, there's nuance. First, to point out something about items in the "yes" column: the author of Hebrews is addressing Jews, and so was Jesus in Matthew 24:20, so the covenant of the sabbath is still definitely for Jews. Nonetheless, Jesus never denied that the sabbath was important; he simply pointed out on several occasions that the Pharisees were failing to remember that there are always exceptions, and a lot of what the Jews decided on their own to classify as "work" was a bit of an overkill. (It's actually a very interesting subject, and here's a good article on it from a Jewish source.) Isaiah 1:13 is one I think I addressed a long time ago for a different reason, but context is important. God isn't angry about the sabbath per se, but rather he's pointing out that the nation of Israel is so evil in general at this point in history that their religious observances are a mockery. I was thinking as a metaphor you could think of a man who keeps cheating on his wife but never takes off his wedding ring; he might as well take it off and throw it away if he's going to continue with that behavior, not because the ring is wrong, though. Paul is really the only writer who addresses the sabbath for Gentile Christians, and as the SAB notes, he's not really particular about it. It's good to keep the sabbath, but if you're not Jewish, the specific day doesn't really matter.

Does God work on the sabbath? This is easy. Yes, he does. The fact that God "rested" on the seventh day of creation doesn't mean he always rests on the seventh day. And I put "rested" in quotes, because I don't believe he actually rested then, either. I don't know how widely theologians would agree with me here, but what God rested from on the seventh day was active creation of the universe. In plenty of other ways, God is continually active. Many theologians believe Colossians 1:17 "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." implies that the universe as a whole is held together by God in some continual active manner. The word "consist" sounds very passive, but in other translations, it reflects a more active concept. (I think it's far more of a fringe belief, but I've heard it suggested that the strong nuclear force is actually the will of God, which is an interesting idea, truth or fantasy.)

I answered the question of whether Jesus is God in John chapter one.

Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water (John 4)

The first two verses of John 4 really belong in the last chapter, and I answered the footnote in my last post. It's worth noting that there's something significant about Jesus and his disciples going through Samaria on their way to Galilee. The Jews didn't like the Samaritans so much that most Jews taking this trip would actually go the long route and go around Samaria rather than through it. This suggests to me that this was not a chance meeting, but rather Jesus purposefully went to Samaria to meet this woman.

It's a very interesting conversation. Jesus talks about "living water" which is something that isn't really clarified, but it seems to be something spiritual. (Edited to add that I really should have noticed that John 7:38-39 (where I got the title) seems to clearly imply that "living water" is the Holy Ghost.) Jesus knows that this woman has been divorced five times and currently lives with a man she's not married to. The SAB's footnote on verse 29 is right in saying this was hardly "all the things [she] ever did," but I find it strange that they chalk it up to the same sort of thing palm readers do; I know how they do that sort of thing, and while you could certainly tell that the woman was a social outcast from her coming to the well mid-day (most women would have come in the morning before it got hot, but this woman apparently wanted to avoid the crowd), I don't see how he could use a "trick" to tell stuff so specific about her.

The woman brings up the matter of the main difference between Jews' religious practice and Samaritans': location. Samaritans didn't have access to the Temple, so they worshipped on a mountain. The woman says that when the Messiah comes, it will all be made known, and Jesus confesses that he's the Messiah.

Does God have a body? Not in any physical sense. This question is very similar to the question of whether God can be seen, which I answered in John 1, but is just different enough to go over separately. Throughout the Bible, as I said there, there are instances of God making something visible that is a representation of himself, as well as people having dreams and visions of a symbolic nature in which they see God as though he has a body. Most of these verses are one of those. God having a voice doesn't imply a body, the word for "spirit" and "breath" are the same in Hebrew, implying perhaps a connection. I don't think the passage in Deuteronomy 23 is saying what the SAB is implying it's saying (even if God had a body, he's omnipotent, so he'd know where to step), it's just an admonition to keep clean.

Did the Samaritans receive Jesus? I don't think there's a contradiction here; these are just two separate incidents at different times in different Samaritan cities.

This chapter ends with a quick story of Jesus healing the son of a nobleman at Capernaum. The SAB marks the passage with absurdity and science, as it does all miracles. Most likely, the reason this miracle is significant is that it shows Jesus can heal people without being physically present. I have to wonder if this is really the second miracle Jesus performed ever, since if it was, how would this guy know Jesus had healing power? I have thoughts, but nothing worth noting.

He anointed the eyes of the blind man (Mark 8)

Mark 8 opens with the story of a miraculous feeding, and while the SAB suggests this is the result of "two oral traditions of the same story" just as in Matthew, there is a moment (in this Gospel in verses 8:19-20) where Jesus refers to the two feedings as two clearly separate events, so I don't think so.

I responded to the question of signs and wonders in Matthew 12.

The SAB asks two questions about Jesus healing a blind man, "Where did Jesus cure the blind man?" and "How did Jesus cure the blind man?" Frankly, I think the two stories are so different that there's no contradiction, there's just two completely different blind men.

I know I've already answered the charge somewhere that "There were various opinions about the identity of Jesus...With credulity like that just about anyone could later be passed off as the risen Christ." but it's worth addressing again. In one case, you have a bunch of people who are trying to figure out who Jesus is from rumor and speculation; in the other you have a specific claim about a specific person that nobody seems to be willing to question. It's food for thought, but I don't find it convincing.

I'm also sure I addressed the question of whether Jesus forewarned his apostles, but the response is simple enough to give again: just because John says they didn't understand doesn't mean they weren't told.

Yes, when Peter was acting adversarial, Jesus called him "Satan" which means "adversary".

Go, and sin no more (Mark 2)

I think everything in Mark 2 is a repeat of something from Matthew, but I suppose I can take the opportunity to broaden the commentary a bit. The SAB says that Jesus healed a paralytic by forgiving him of his sins and that paralysis is apparently caused by sinful behavior. I'm pretty sure I said before in the parallel passage in Matthew 9 that I believe the forgiveness and the healing were two separate issues. (I also argued there that Jesus was God, as that question came up there as well.) Something I think could be said to further the discussion is that while it's not always true that misfortune happens to people because of sinful behavior, the latter certainly can make one more susceptible to the former. Most sinful behaviors are dangerous in one way or another, and certainly can lead to disease or injury, which may have been the case in this man's life or not.

As for the rest of the chapter, there are only a couple questions about David, which I addressed in 1Samuel 21.

But whom say ye that I am? (Matthew 9)

Matthew 9 begins with the story of Jesus healing a sick man. The SAB says that the man is healed by having his sins forgiven, but I don't think that's what the story is telling us. I think the healing and the forgiveness are supposed to be two separate acts. (I have no idea why this passage is marked as "injustice".) The forgiveness does bring up an issue, though. Apparently, this was considered blasphemous, as only God had the authority to forgive sins, so is Jesus God? Well, I'm going to take the position that Jesus is God, so I'm only going to address items in the "No" column of the linked page. In Matthew 19:17, Jesus does not expressly say that he is not God; I'll probably address that more fully when I get there. As for the rest, the confusion arises because of the oddity that is trinitarianism, an issue probably too big for me to tackle, but I suppose I'll have to at some point in the New Testament, so why not here?

Okay, so Christianity of course believes that there is one and only one God, but, as you may have heard, also believes that God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which can sound like a form of tritheism. (It's actually my understanding that the LDS church in particular is a tritheistic church, but it's more complicated than that in their case.) What is going on, though, is that while God is a single being, He manifests Himself in three persons, each of which has a slightly different role. I was actually talking with an agnostic friend about this recently, and just because he'll be delighted that I used this analogy in the blog, I will: It's sort of like the TV show Doctor Who. If you're not familiar, the show is a British sci-fi action series that features the adventures of "The Doctor", a human-appearing space alien that has a ship known as the TARDIS that allows him to travel through Time And Relative Dimensions In Space. What's important for the analogy, though, is that about a dozen actors have played The Doctor in the main series. Now unlike James Bond, who has been played by about half a dozen actors, but is always supposed to be the same person, each new actor that plays The Doctor is supposed to be taking over when the previous one dies, as death is not permanent for those of The Doctor's race, but leads to a "regeneration" in which one gets a new body and actually a new personality. Thus each regeneration of The Doctor is, while still The Doctor, like a brand new person in many ways. Back to theology, the Father (more often referred to as "God" or "Lord" than the other two), Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit (who doesn't seem to have a personal name) are all God in the end, but each of them has his own personality and role to play in Christianity (although unlike in Doctor Who, they all exist simultaneously). In a manner that is hard for me to fully understand, there also seems to be something like a rank among them, with the Father being primary in a fashion that I don't know to ever be made completely clear.

Does God desire animal sacrifices? I covered that in Genesis 4.

Starting in verse 18, we get the story of Jairus' daughter, who was either dead or at least near death when her father asked Jesus to come and help her. Was she dead? This does seem to be another place where Matthew differs from the other Gospels, but I'm not sure it really matters since I've always chosen to take Jesus at his word in verse 24 that she was never dead at all. Thus the question that the SAB asks in that verse is not an issue here, at least. (It will be eventually, of course.)

In the middle of the story is the story of a woman who was healed on the way to Jairus' house. I don't think that Jesus is saying that "medical science is unnecessary", but that there is some sort of power to be found in having faith in Jesus in addition to medicine. This may very well be just a matter of the healing power of a positive attitude for all I know; I've certainly heard it said that health is in many ways in the mind as well as in the body, and for some sorts of sickness, I don't doubt it. On the other hand, Jesus proceeds to go and heal two blind men and a mute possessed by a devil. I think both of these are undoubtedly a matter of supernatural power on the part of Jesus. No, I don't think the Bible is saying it's generally the case that a person who is mute must be possessed, only that it was the case here.