Faith in his name hath made this man strong (Acts 4)

Acts chapter four has only one contradiction (who raised Jesus, which I answered in John chapter two), but there are a lot of other notes that I don't want to pass up.

Verse twelve has a lot of notes on it, because it's the controversial moment in which Peter says that only in the name of Jesus can one be saved. As always, the SAB marks such a statement as intolerant and unjust, and it's understandable! There is something fascinating to me about exclusivity claims by religions, because people find them intolerant, but most religions (including, as not a religion, but a religious classification, atheism) claim to be the one true religion. Yeah, there are exceptions, but think they are likely representative of less of the world population. Putting that aside and focusing on Christianity's exclusivity for the moment, I think there is something that can be said about it to soften the harshness. As I've discussed several times in both John and even earlier in Acts, it's largely understood that when Jesus died, he went to Hell and "set the captives free". It's pretty darn likely that the majority of people in Hell waiting for salvation had never heard the name Jesus of Nazareth, but they were saved anyway. I figure if people before the crucifixion could be saved without knowing Jesus, why would that change afterwards? So no, the name Jesus isn't "the password to heaven" as the SAB puts it; we are all saved by Jesus, but it isn't about any specific words or name that we know or say. I truly believe that Heaven will be full of plenty of non-Christians. (Should I say something about the side comment to Jehovah's Witnesses? I don't think I know JW theology well enough to comment on this. They don't believe that Jesus is God, I know, but does that bring up an issue with this particular verse? I don't know.)

So verse 13 brings up the issue of Peter and John being uneducated. The SAB says that if this is true, they couldn't have written the Bible books attributed to them. I don't think this follows, though, for a few reasons. First of all, it's not clear what is meant by "unlearned and ignorant". It doesn't necessarily mean that they were illiterate idiots; as obserant Jews they probably knew how to read and write Hebrew and Aramaic, and had some amount of teaching in the Hebrew Bible, but didn't have the sort of formal teaching a Rabbi would have had. More importantly, the fact that they were "unlearned" at this time is probably irrelevant because from this time forward, they stopped being fishermen and started being pastors, which probably involved a lot of time reading and writing, thus furthering and refining their knowledge. The time between Pentecost and the writing of John's books is actually many decades; I'm sure he had a long time to get as good as he did.

So, Peter and John get threatened by the religious leaders, but since they haven't technically broken any laws, they get to leave the Temple without any punishment. They say a prayer of thanksgiving (which the SAB finds boring) and for some reason, after they pray, there's an earthquake. The SAB marks this with "science" but this was either a miracle or maybe even just a coincidence; there's nothing antiscientific about earthquakes happening. The last bit of the chapter again talks about the church and how they were essentially communists. This is marked with "politics", which is one I haven't seen before; I don't know if it was added or if I just haven't come across it before. I suppose the point of the marking is that you don't tend to hear a lot about Christian communists in the 21st century, although they do exist; I know a few. It's actually very interesting that modern conservative evangelical Christians have sort of made a marriage between Christianity and capitalism, when the Bible says a whole lot about the love of money being evil, and that a country is judged by how they treat the poor, and other such things that are really the antithesis of capitalism, in my opinion. I think it's a subject worth examining.

They inclosed a great multitude of fishes (John 21)

So, as promised, a post on John chapter 21, even though like the first part of John eight, it's probably not part of the original. However, once again, there's a lot of interesting stuff to unpack here.

So the story tells us up front that this is another post-resurrection appearance of Jesus, this time by the sea of Tiberias/Galilee. Peter decides he's going fishing; apparently after everything that's happened, he's not sure what to do next, so he figures he's going back to his old job, I guess. A bunch of the other Apostles go with him. They go fishing at night, but catch nothing. A man appears on the shore and asks them if they have anything to eat; it's Jesus, but they don't recognize him.

I have a personal theory about this repeated business of Jesus not being initially recognized by people in post-resurrection appearances. I don't remember if I came up with this myself or if I heard it from someone else. One of the things we hear about Jesus post-resurrection, is that he still has the scars of his torture on his body. I already talked briefly about what that might imply in John 19, but there's another detail not mentioned there, or even in the New Testament in general. It's a bit of a reach, admittedly, but some people see Isaiah 50:6 as a prophecy of Jesus's torture before his crucifixion, and it reads, "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting." If, in addition to the trauma actually described in the gospels, Jesus's beard was plucked out, he would have a scarred and hairless face on top of everything else. This would certainly make him hard to recognize for anyone used to seeing him with a beard. It's hard to say, though; one of the interesting things about Jesus in the Bible is there is absolutely no physical description of him anywhere at all (unless you count Revelation chapter one, which is probably not what Jesus usually looked like).

Anyway, when they tell Jesus they have no fish, he tells them to cast the net on the right side of the boat, which they do, and subsequently catch so many fish they can't lift the net back in the boat, a call back to the story from Luke chapter five. I've sometimes wondered if this story was meant to be an allegory to the idea of the Gospel going from the Jews to the gentiles, but that's pure speculation. John realizes that the man is Jesus, and says so. Peter, who for some reason was fishing at night naked, puts on his clothes and jumps in the water to swim to shore. The others drag the net to the shore where Jesus is apparently making breakfast for them. The story specifies that they caught 153 fish, which is interesting because it's not a number that has significance, nor is it rounded. It seems that whoever wrote this wanted to show that there was a lot of fish, and that they weren't being hyperbolic about it.

Verses 15-17 are very interesting, but something is lost in translation. As the SAB notes, it sounds like Jesus is asking the same question three times, but it's a shortcoming of the English language, that doesn't have as many words for "love" as Greek. It's been said by many that since Peter denied Jesus three times, Jesus asks Peter three times to restore him, which may be true. But the real significance is in the specific words used in the Greek. It's sort of like this:

Jesus: Do you love me more than anyone?

Peter: You know I like you.

J: Do you love me?

P: You know I like you.

J: Do you like me?

P: [grieved to notice the change of verbs] You know all things; you know I like you.

Note once again that just because Jesus is asking a question, it doesn't mean he didn't know the answer; he's trying to draw something out of Peter here, and perhaps teach Peter something.

Jesus says some cryptic things to Peter that apparently are prophetic of the way Peter would die. History says that Peter was crucified, however he requested to be crucified upside down because he wasn't worthy of dying the same death as Jesus. Because of this, an upside-down cross is sometimes considered a symbol of the Apostle Peter. Peter asks about John, and Jesus says, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" Which some people, including apparently the SAB, take to mean that John would live until the second coming, but I think Jesus is just saying, "that's none of your business." (Verse 23 seems to be confirming this.) Nonetheless, John did see the second coming in a vision in writing the book of Revelation.

The chapter and the book end with the claim that all the things that Jesus did probably couldn't be contained in all the books of the world. If we're talking about what Jesus did in his thirty-odd years on earth alone, this is clearly hyperbole. As for the SAB's question of Does the gospel of Luke contain everything that Jesus did? I think the SAB is taking the word "all" in Acts 1:1 too literally. I'm pretty sure Luke just meant "all the things that I thought were important enough to include..."

He appeared first to Mary Magdalene (John 20)

John chapter 20 picks up the story on the following Sunday. There are definitely a lot of aspects of the story of Jesus's resurrection that are hard to follow among the four gospels, but at some point in the past, I made this rather difficult to read page about it: Resurrection harmony. As I allude to there, I believe that Mary Magdalene was the first of several women to arrive, perhaps even alone. So, let's knock out some supposed contradictions...

When did the women (or woman) arrive at the sepulchre? Mary Magdalene arrived before sunrise; some other women arrived shortly after. How many women came to the sepulchre? At least five, and I believe they came in at least two separate groups. The fact that some of the gospels fail to mention every single woman who came doesn't mean they weren't there. Was the tomb open or closed when the women arrived? It was open. The original Greek in Matthew supports the possible translation "had opened" suggesting he didn't put these verses in strict chronological order. When did the women discover that Jesus's body was missing? The answer is before talking to the angel(s). It doesn't seem like Mary Magdalene talked to an angel at all, actually. Matthew once again is missing some details as to chronological order, as he never mentions the women checking out the tomb. In Mark, they are already in the tomb, so they likely saw the body was missing before the angel actually spoke. Well, that's verse one, let's see what the rest of the chapter has for us.

Did Jesus forewarn the apostles of his death and resurrection? Yes, he did, but they were still confused and a bit hesitant to believe, even after all they had seen Jesus do. Oh, and just a side note about verse eight, I always wonder what exactly it is that John "believed" if the very next verse says they didn't understand the resurrection yet.

Were the men or angels inside or outside the tomb when the when the women arrived? I'm sticking to the idea that the angel rolled away the stone before anyone got to the tomb, so Matthew is once again talking about something that happened when only the soldiers were present. Whom did the women see at the tomb? Yes, there's a contradiction here, but not necessarily as convoluted as the SAB implies. Once again, the verse from Matthew is talking about an event that happened before the women arrived. As for the rest of it, there seems to be some confusion about whether there were two or one, but whether it was angels or men, I think we're dealing with angels that happen to look like men, so they are described variously. Most likely the correct answer is two angels, one of whom spoke. Were the men or angels inside the tomb sitting or standing? Really? They probably changed position at some point.

To whom did Jesus make his first post-resurrection appearance? Definitely Mary Magdalene; none of the other verses besides the one in Mark mention chronological order. Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus when he first appeared to her? No, not immediately. The event in Matthew happened later, and it's not particularly clear whether Mary Magdalene was even there. The story in Luke is a second-hand account that is unclear as to when it was heard about or what details were heard. Was Mary Magdalene happy or sad when she saw the risen Jesus? Sad. Once again, these are two separate events. Was it okay to touch the risen Jesus? Apparently it was. The explanation I have been told about this admonition Jesus gives Mary Magdalene is that she probably wasn't just touching him but clinging to him tightly and Jesus was trying to tell her she couldn't keep him. I'm not sure, but other translations do say, "Do not hold on to me..." I already answered the question of who God's children are and if Jesus is God in John chapter one. Did Jesus go to heaven after he died but before his ascension? Yes, this is an apparent contradiction, and one that I noticed myself. I am of the opinion that in the time between Jesus's death and resurrection, he was in Hell, but of course it may be that he went to Hell, set people there loose, and took them to Heaven. I think the thing you can definitely say is that Jesus has not ascended to Heaven for the final time, which would happen in about forty days.

Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples after the resurrection? There is no contradiction here. Once again there is a time issue with Matthew: nowhere in the Matthew passage does it say that was Jesus's first appearance. Were the disciples frightened or glad when they saw Jesus? Frightened initially, but once Jesus reassured them, they were glad. So both. I already answered when the Holy Ghost was given in John chapter seven, but verse 23 is an interesting one, because it sounds like Jesus is giving them the Holy Ghost right now rather than at Pentecost. A bit strange. How many disciples did Jesus appear to in his first post resurrection appearance? I know I addressed this some time previously, but because there were originally twelve Apostles, they are sometimes referred to as "the twelve" even after Judas was gone, and since Judas was gone, sometimes referred to as "the eleven". It's imprecise because they're not always together, and eventually there are more people referred to as "Apostles" (including Junia, a woman, if I am remembering correctly), but this convention is there anyway. The correct answer is ten Apostles, but there may actually have been other, lesser disciples present as well.

When did Jesus ascend into Heaven? The correct answer is 40 days after his resurrection. The verses given in the "on the day" section are not specific about how much time had passed. The other verses do not contradict 40 days. Should we believe in unseen things? Sometimes. The SAB says the second half of verse 29 is equivalent to "Blessed are they that believe stupid things without (or even contrary to) evidence." This is not what it means at all. There are more kinds of evidence than seeing something, a lot more. Right now, I can't see the chair I am sitting on, but I believe it exists, and I believe it will continue to support my weight without collapse. I have never seen Jesus with my eyes, but I have read about him in the Bible, and I have researched the evidence for the accuracy of the Bible to the original manuscripts, and I have witnessed things that make me think the God of the Bible is real. That's enough evidence for me to believe, it certainly is not enough for some people. Note that the Bible never condemns Thomas for doubting; it's not a sin to want more evidence. I already answered whether Jesus performed many signs in John chapter three.

As the SAB notes, this chapter ends in a way that sound like the end of the book, and it's likely chapter 21 is a later addition, but I will do a post on it, of course.

And they crucified him (John 19)

John chapter 19 opens with Jesus being scourged. The SAB says Jesus gets "whipped", but no, scourged isn't just the archaic term for whipped; it means something quite different. A whip is a thin strip of leather that mostly leaves burn marks on the back. A scourge is a thick strip of leather embedded with things like sharp rocks, pieces of broken glass, and metal spikes that would tear open the back. I've always thought it was strange that when people talk about Jesus's wounds, they tend to mention the four nail holes and spear hole in his side, but forget his back was most likely shredded. It's morbid, but I think it's important to understand fully the extent of the torture Jesus went through in his final hours.

Who put the robe on Jesus? and What color was Jesus's robe? All four gospels mention the robe, but apparently the details vary. On a technicality, it's likely that in Luke's telling of the story, when it says Herod did it, it's really probably meaning Herod supplied the robe and soldiers (probably Romans) actually put it on, but as I said in the last chapter, it's still very strange that only Luke mentions the visit to Herod. The robe was probably purple, as that would have been a royal color, but I have no idea why Matthew says scarlet.

So then there is some back and forth between Pilate and the Sanhedrin, wherein Pilate keeps saying he doesn't understand what Jesus is guilty of, and finally, the Jews tell him that Jesus claimed to be the son of God, which is blasphemy. Pilate goes back to Jesus and asks him why he's not defending himself, as Pilate definitely has the authority to put him to death. Jesus says Pilate's authority comes from God, and therefore those who betrayed him have a greater sin. Pilate presents Jesus as the king, but the Jews say, "We have no king but Ceasar!" So finally, Pilate has him taken away to be crucified.

When (at what time of day) was Jesus crucified? This is a weird one that I don't personally know the answer to, but what I have heard it said about this discrepancy is that there are actually two different methods of measuring time, the Jewish one and the Roman one. Supposedly Mark is using the Roman method while the other gospels use the Jewish method. I already answered what day Jesus was crucified in the last chapter.

Who carried Jesus's cross? Yes, there's a detail of the crucifixion that John fails to mention: the role of Simon the Cyrenian. There is no contradiction here; Jesus carried his cross part of the way, but after being scourged, he didn't have the strength to make it all the way, so the Romans grabbed a random guy from the crowd and made him help. I find it interesting that this is one of a few places in the Bible with what I suppose you'd call representation; Jesus was a Semite, Simon was a Hamite, and the Roman soldier with them would have been a Japhethite. What did the sign over Jesus's head say? Yes, all four of the gospels have a different sign, but they are very close. There is an interesting significance to the sign here in John, however. John says the sign was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; in Hebrew, "JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS" would be four words, with the initial letters spelling "יהוה" which in the Hebrew Bible is the name of God. The chief priests in verse 21 are not just upset because they don't recognize Jesus as king, but because the sign is accidentally blasphemous.

Where did the women watching the crucifixion stand? I think this supposed contradiction is taking the words too literally. When the OT gospels say "afar off", I don't think it means they are very far away, as obviously they are within view of the cross. Furthermore, it may be that there were more women than the ones John specifies, and those specific four were close enough to the cross to talk to Jesus; certainly his mother was. I briefly discussed the idea of Jesus being gay in chapter 13.

What did the soldiers give Jesus to drink? and Did Jesus drink on the cross? Notice that Mark says two different drinks at two different times, and Jesus refuses the first, and the first was wine, which Jesus said he wouldn't drink again in this world at the last supper. Furthermore, while John says Jesus "received" the vinegar, it doesn't technically say he drank it; he may have simply tasted it. So, in summary, I would say Jesus was given both wine and vinegar, it's unclear what the makeup of the vinegar was, and while Jesus definitely did not drink the wine, he may have had a small sip of the vinegar.

What were the last words of Jesus? Yeah, everyone who has read the gospels knows this is an unclear point. I think it can be reasonably resolved, however. The witnesses of the crucifixion were standing in different places, so it makes sense that they heard different things. Note that Matthew says that Jesus cried out again, so he is not claiming that the quote he gave was Jesus's last saying; I would assume when he cried out, he said what Luke quotes. I would assume that John's "It is finished." was the actual last saying, but since it was quiet, only the people standing at the foot of the cross heard it.

Verse 36 says it's a fulfillment of scripture that none of Jesus's bones were broken. As I mentioned previously, Jesus is serving as the ultimate Passover lamb, and scripture says in Exodus 12:46 of the Passover lamb, "...neither shall ye break a bone thereof." The SAB argues that this is not a prophecy, but I think it's a matter of opinion, and Christians disagree.

The chapter ends up with Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, two members of the Sanhedrin who were secretly disciples of Jesus, preparing Jesus's body for burial and putting it in a nearby sepulcher.

Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests (John 18)

John chapter 18 tells the story of Jesus's betrayal, capture, and some of what followed. Did Judas identify Jesus with a kiss? I would say yes, he did, but John failed to mention that detail. So Jesus does identify himself, and as soon as he says, "I am he," the soldiers fall over, perhaps implying some sort of power to Jesus's voice. Peter draws a sword and strikes a servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. It's neen suggested that this indicates Peter went for the easiest target and hit him while he was walking away. Jesus rebukes Peter, and the soldiers take Jesus away.

Was Jesus taken to Caiaphas or Annas first? There is something tricky going on here because of the nature of the relationship between these two priests. It's actually known somehow historically that Annas was the high priest, but Rome wasn't happy with him for some reason, so they forced the Jews to choose a new high priest, who was Caiaphas. However, a lot of the Jews still thought of Annas as the high priest, and he still had some authority. (This also explains the oddity in verse 19 of Annas being called the high priest: there were sort of two. See Luke 3:2) So when the gospels say Jesus was taken to the high priest without specification, it could be either man. Matthew does indeed specify Caiaphas, but none of the gospels besides John's mentions stopping by Annas at all; as John was the one Apostle who followed Jesus closely that night, it makes sense that John would have more details. What is a more interesting discrepancy is the fact that only one gospel mentions visiting Herod, and it's not John.

There are a lot of oddities to Jesus's trial that are actually illegal. Trials can't be at night; the accused cannot be made to testify against himself; in a capital trial, two witnesses are needed; and just as a cherry on top from the other gospels, the high priest is not allowed to tear his clothes. To whom did Peter deny knowing Jesus? Yeah, there's no real way to get around this one; the gospels are very mixed up on the details of this aspect of the story, and I have no idea why.

Did Jesus have secret teachings? I think it's fairly straightforward to reconcile these verses. While Jesus explained the parables to his disciples, the parables themselves were not secret, and while Jesus kept his full identity a secret at the beginning of his ministry, he eventually went very public about it. As for the transfiguration, yesn that was secret, but there were no teachings involved. In short, everything Jesus had to say about himself he eventually said in public, and even in front of the Pharisees.

When (on what day) was Jesus crucified? This is an easy one, if you know Jewish custom. As I mentioned in another post, Passover is seven days long. What I didn't mention, but probably should have, is that there is a feast on both the first and second night. So the Passover meal talked about in John is the second one. The SAB makes note of the fact that Jesus here has a fairly detailed conversation with Pilate, although Matthew says Jesus said virtually nothing. It is interesting, and I wonder why it's not simply marked as a contradiction, since it's arguably so. Oh, it is, and I somehow missed it. Well, I don't have an answer anyway. Pilate asks Jesus, "What is truth?" which, as the SAB notes, is a good question, but it's probably noted for its irony, because Jesus said, "I am the truth..." Pilate offers to set free a prisoner, as is apparently the custom on Passover. He thinks the crowd will choose Jesus, but they choose Barabbas. ("Barabbas" is Aramaic for "son of the father" which some people have suggested may be meaningful. )

Ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another (John 17)

John chapter 17 has Jesus closing his speech with a prayer. There is a lot of stuff marked as absurd in this chapter that, as is so often the case, I don't understand. I answered how many gods there are in John chapter ten. Verse 12 has Jesus say that Judas is a fulfillment of scripture, and the Christian consensus seems to be that he's referring to Psalm 41:9-10

Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me. But thou, O LORD, be merciful unto me, and raise me up, that I may requite them.

In verse 21, Jesus prays that all that believe in him should be one, which the SAB makes fun of, and there certainly is basis for it, but I think it may be a bit overblown. Yes, there are probably thousands of Christian denominations in the world today, but that doesn't necessarily mean such radical division as some might think. A lot of denominations are different like flavors of ice cream; just because I'm a Baptist and that guy over there is a Lutheran doesn't mean we don't basically agree on most things; denominations are largely about what sort of worship style you like, and how you feel about church hierarchies, rather than being about essential doctrines of the faith. I mean, sometimes I'm struck by how much I have in common theologically with a Muslim, much less someone simply of a different denomination. I have brothers in Christ who are Orthodox, Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, etc. and I don't see them as essentially different from me. Yes, there are conflicts between Christians and even conflicts between churches, but in the end, most of us recognize that Christians are Christians, and if we're called to show God's love for the world, that certainly includes other Christians.

Thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter (John 16)

John chapter 16 and Jesus is still talking. He talks about the upcoming persecution of Christians, which of course in the first several centuries of Christianity was a major thing. Actually, Christians are persecuted up until this day, although American Christians tend to have a twisted idea of what persecution means. (People got angry at me because I wouldn't bake a cake for a same-sex wedding! I'm so persecuted!)

Anyway, I already answered the question of whether the Apostles asked where Jesus was going in chapter 13. I answered the question of who sent the Holy Ghost in chapter 14. I answered who the lord of the earth is in chapter 12. I answered whether Jesus told his disciples everything in chapter 15.

Apparently, although the Apostles aren't asking where Jesus is going, they are still confused. Jesus senses their confusion and tells them that while they will be sad at first, their sadness will turn to joy; he takes a metaphor of a woman in childbirth, who has to go through pain on the way to joy. I addressed the issue of blank check prayers in chapter 14.

Jesus says that while he has talked a lot in metaphor, he is going to speak plainly; the Apostles essentially thank him and say that they understand, and know that Jesus knows everything. Did Jesus know everything? It's an interesting question, because Jesus is supposedly God, and God is supposedly omniscient, but was Jesus? Interestingly, the answer is no, but there is definitely some need for clarification. First, the verse from Mark 13 is Jesus admitting that there is something he doesn't know, although it's not explained why. It's important to note that while Jesus is admitting not knowing when the end of the world will be, that certainly doesn't mean he'll never know. It's assumed by most Christians that there was some limit imposed on Jesus's omniscience while he was on earth for some reason, but he was omniscient once he ascended, if not immediately after his resurrection. So two of the verses in the yes section are people saying that Jesus knew everything, but they may have been wrong. The third one was written by Paul after Jesus's ascension. In the no section, the fact that Jesus asked a question doesn't mean he didn't already know the answer (I touched on this in addressing God's omniscience in Genesis three), and the fact that he "marvelled" doesn't mean he was surprised, so while Jesus was not omniscient, it doesn't mean he didn't know these things.

He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law (John 15)

John chapter 15 opens with Jesus's "I am the vine" speech. This is a very popular one among Christians, at least in my experience. He uses the metaphor of being a vine and believers being branches, and if they stay connected, they will bear fruit. Jesus also talks about branches that are not connected being removed and burned up, which the SAB chooses to take much more literally than I think it was intended; it's a metaphor. Jesus also repeats what he said before about prayers being answered, which I addressed in the last chapter. Jesus commands his disciples to love each other, which the SAB makes an insightful comment on: if Jesus is saying love everyone, this is great, but so many people take it to mean only love Christians who are like you, which is sad indeed.

Did Jesus tell his disciples everything? Yeah, on the face of it, with these verses coming in this order, it sounds like a contradiction. I think the likely resolution is that when Jesus says here in chapter 15 that he told them "all things that I have heard of my Father" he means that he's told them everything they need to know at this time; I mean, it doesn't actually say "everything". I think there are things that they are only going to fully understand after Jesus is resurrected.

In verse 23, Jesus says, "He that hateth me hateth my Father also." The SAB rightly interprets this to mean if you hate Jesus, you therefore hate God, and calls it intolerant, noting that Luther used this verse as an excuse for antisemitism. I think this is unfortunate, and it's not meant to be that way. I don't think Jesus is saying you can't love God without loving Jesus, but rather that those who fully understand who Jesus was and hate him for it are hating God. Yeah, it's a fine line, but I nonetheless feel it's important.

I already addressed who sent the Holy Ghost in the last chapter.

Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven (John 14)

John chapter 14 continues Jesus's parting message to the Apostles. He talks a lot about Heaven and the Holy Ghost. Speaking of Heaven, When was heaven created? The verses on this page are talking about different things. "In the beginning" and "when the earth was created" are the same time. As I'm pretty sure I mentioned in Genesis somewhere, the Jews believed in three "heavens": the atmosphere, outer space, and the dwelling place of God (in 2Corinthians 12:2 Paul talks about being "caught up to the third heaven"). Now here in John 14, Jesus is not talking about creating Heaven, but essentially preparing it for guests in some way. Theologically, up until now, nobody has been in Heaven but God and his angels.

I just talked about the disciples asking where Jesus was going in the previous chapter. The SAB marks Jesus's claim to be the only way to Heaven as intolerant, and while I suppose it may be, if it's the truth, it's the truth. Now of course there are Christians who believe in universal salvation, and they would say everyone gets to Heaven because Jesus died for the sin of the world, which is certainly possible, but seems unlikely given other things Jesus says. Jesus says, "if you have seen me you have seen the Father," prompting the SAB to ask, "Can God be seen?" (which I answered in John chapter one) and "Is Jesus God?" (which I answered in another post in John one).

Jesus says, "whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do." This the SAB calls, "The greatest lie ever told." Now I understand why someone would think that, because on the straightforward fully literal sense, it's not true. Once again, I don't think it's saying what the SAB thinks it's saying. The phrase "in my name" doesn't mean, "If you tack the name Jesus onto the end of any prayer, your wish will be magically granted." Rather, as I've discussed before, a person's "name" is like their reputation, and in Jesus's case--and here in this verse--it means the essence of who Jesus is. The point here, and I know skeptics are going to call it a cop-out, is that if you ask for something that aligns with God's will, you will see your prayer answered.

Will Jesus's second coming be visible to all? I don't think this is really a contradiction. Once again, this is a matter of taking "no more" to be a more absolute statement than Jesus is meaning it to be. I think it suffices to say that nobody living at the time Jesus spoke those words would see Jesus again on earth after his ascension. Who sent the Holy Ghost? Again, not a contradiction; both Jesus and the Father sent him.

Is Jesus peaceful? I'm sure I covered this somewhere in one of the other gospels, but yes, these verses can be confusing. Let me clear up a handful that don't really belong here. The Matthew 26 and Luke 22 passages are not about peace or war, but are simply about self-defense; in the Luke passage, Jesus suggests the Apostles should arm themselves, because they will likely find themselves in danger after Jesus is gone, and in Matthew, Jesus is just telling Peter to let things unfold as peacefully as possible rather than starting a fight he can't win. As for the rest, the peace that Jesus brought to earth was peace between man and God by taking away the sin of the world. However people who accept this peace will often find themselves in struggle against those who do not accept it. And of course, in the Revelation passage, there is a literal war, with Jesus as the commander-in-chief of one side.

"Is Jesus God?" and "Who is the Lord of the earth?" are questions I answered in John chapter one and John chapter 12 respectively.

How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings (John 13)

John chapter 13 opens with Jesus washing the Apostles' feet. This is a very touching scene, because this task would usually be done by a servant, so Jesus, now apparently on the day before his death, shows himself to be a servant of his disciples, which is generally a radical reversal of tradition. The SAB marks this as absurd, along with a few other things in the chapter, but I'm not sure why this one. If it's supposedly absurd for Jesus to do such a menial task, then it's right on target and gets the point. If it's absurd that Jesus strips down before doing it, I don't see why; he probably wanted to keep his clothes clean. Anyway, when he gets to Peter, they have an exchange of words in which Peter refuses to have his feet washed, Jesus tells him that it's necessary, Peter says Jesus should wash his hands and face, and Jesus says after bathing only feet need to be washed. I have heard a lot of Christians look for deeper meaning in this exchange, but I think Jesus is just plain talking about dirt; if you take a bath in the river and then walk back to the house, really only your feet are going to be dirty. (Okay, there is a touch of deeper meaning that John explains in verse 11, the implication that Judas is not clean because he was planning to betray Jesus.) Jesus puts his clothes back on and talks to the Apostles about what he did, explaining that as he acted like a servant to them, so they should act as servants to the other believers in the future. There are actually churches who take this literally and practice feet washing. I believe the Pope actually washes the feet of twelve people just before Easter every year; recently there was a story about Pope Francis choosing to wash the feet of twelve Muslim refugees as a gesture of interfaith goodwill and a heart for refugees. I'm not a Catholic, but I really like Pope Francis.

So then apparently John skips forward a bit towards the end of the Passover meal (it's easier to tell from context in the other gospels when this happens) and Jesus is talking about his betrayal. He speaks of Psalm 41:9 as prophecy, and the SAB brings up a couple points about the context of that Psalm. Jesus of course hasn't sinned against God the Father, so if the whole psalm is supposed to be prophetic, perhaps verse four speaks about Peter? As for having an "evil disease" people were just saying of Jesus that he was demon possessed, so that could certainly fit.

The SAB makes some allusion to John and Jesus being so close as a possibility once again for Jesus being gay. John is lying against Jesus's chest for a while here, and as I said back in 1Samuel where I was talking about David and Jonathan, it's not uncommon in other cultures for two heterosexual men who are good friends to be affectionate towards each other. I find it funny that America, where we're tolerant enough of homosexuality that we legalized same-sex marriage (as we should--it's not the government's job to say who we can marry or what consenting adults do in their own homes), is so homophobic that we see two men hugging and assume they are gay. Virtually everywhere else, men are affectionate.

When did Satan enter Judas? the SAB asks as Jesus reveals to John who the betrayer is. This is not a contradiction if you can accept that Satan enters into Judas more than once. Satan enters into Judas in Luke 22 when Judas decides to see what he can get for betrayal of Jesus, and enters into Judas again when he actually goes to commit the act. I really wanted to follow up with the discussion from a few posts ago about Jesus supposedly committing suicide. One should note that while the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus, they didn't want to do it at Passover. Matthew 26:3-5

Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him. But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.

So Jesus knows they don't want to get him during Passover, but in this passage, we see him force the matter: right after talking about being betrayed, he hands food to Judas, saying, "That thou doest, do quickly." Jesus is telling Judas, I know you're going to betray me; do it now. Jesus wants to be betrayed and killed during Passover (which lasts for seven days) for a few reasons. First, he wants to fulfill prophecy and become the ultimate Passover lamb, or as John the Baptist put it in John 1:29, "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Secondly, and related, Jesus wants to be killed by the Romans, so he will be crucified, as this fulfills scripture again (and his own prophecies about his death), and as the Passover lamb, his bones are not broken (if the Jews killed him, they would have stoned him to death, which certainly would have broken bones)(see also John 19:33). Why does dying during Passover mean that the Romans kill him? John 18:31-32

Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

Some have incorrectly assumed this meant that the Jews weren't allowed to put someone to death under Roman law, but note that they already tried to kill Jesus several times, and did kill Stephen in the Book of Acts. No, what's not lawful is touching a dead body during Passover (see Numbers 6:9). In the end, Jesus is carefully controlling the manner and timing of his death.

The SAB marks verse 35 as absurd, and you have to admit that historically, "love" hasn't been the hallmark of self-professed "Christians." Perhaps it's a sign that they weren't? There certainly are a lot of present-day "Christians" I question.

Did any of the apostles ask Jesus where he was going? Yes, but apparently by chapter 16, they had stopped asking. Did Jesus say before the cock crow or before the cock crows twice? I guess this is a genuine contradiction, but what difference does it really make? I mean the cock has to crow if it's going to crow twice.

And they brought the colt to Jesus (John 12)

Okay, John chapter twelve opens with Jesus being anointed by Mary. The SAB compares this story with one in the other gospels, but I think if you look at the details, it's two different anointings. In this story, we're told the anointer is Mary, while in the other, it's a nameless woman who is a "sinner" (I think it may be implied that she is a prostitute). In this story, Jesus is at the house of Lazarus, while in the other he is at the house of Simon "the leper" (probably a former leper that Jesus healed). In this story, it's six days before Passover, while in the other, it's two days before. In this story, there's no mention of what sort of vessel Mary had the ointment in, while in the other, they specify an alabaster box.

Is it OK to use perfume? Wow, a lot of the SAB's supposed contradictions are insightful, but this is a reach. The answer is yes, it is okay. The Exodus 30 verse is crystal clear in context that it's talking about a specific perfume; the one described in the previous two verses is specified to be for ceremonial use only, and not personal use. The Proverbs 7 passage is saying that prostitutes use perfume, but doesn't in any way say only prostitutes use it. I don't know entirely what the point of the Isaiah verses is, but they certainly don't say not to use perfume. This really is a non-issue.

Anyway, Judas complains that the perfume was worth about a year's worth of wages, and it could have been sold to help the poor. The Bible notes that Judas didn't really care about the poor, but rather was in charge of holding the money bag for the group, and often stole from it for himself. Jesus says an interesting thing here, "the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always." It dounds a bit calloused, and indeed it's sort of strange that Jesus, who often taught about helping the poor, would say it, but keep in mind, Jesus has about a week to live. This is actually a rather unfortunate verse in the Bible that I have actually heard "Christians" quote to justify not helping the poor.

So the next day, Jesus rides into Jerusalem, but the SAB asks, On what did Jesus ride into Jerusalem? This seems like a contradiction, but it's just that the different gospel writers used different words for the same thing. Jesus rode on the colt of an ass. Saying he rode on a colt or an ass essentially means the same thing, and saying that he rode on both is just saying the colt's mother was there; obviously he didn't ride on two things at once. The SAB also questions whether this truly fulfilled the prophecy quoted in verse 15. While he fulfilled that specific verse, the SAB claims, "But this can't be since the person referred to in Zechariah (see verses 10-13) was both a military leader and the king of an earthly kingdom." Let's see those verses:

9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. Be glad and shout, people of Jerusalem, because your king comes to you, humble and riding on a young donkey.
10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.
11 As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.
12 Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope: even to day do I declare that I will render double unto thee;
13 When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man.

I think I don't see the military thing, as verse 10 talks about peace; nonetheless, there is a concept that is pretty consistent in the New Testament of "spiritual warfare" which is to say that there is always a battle going on in the spiritual realm between good and bad (actually, there are elements of this concept in the Old Testament, too). It's also known that it's symbolic that when a military leader rides into a city on a stallion, he's coming for war, but when he rides on a colt, he's coming in peace. As for an earthly kingdom, the book of Revelation says some things similar to this, implying that at Jesus's second coming, he will have a kingdom on earth.

After riding into Jerusalem, Jesus makes a speech. In the speech, he says something about seeds "dying" that the SAB takes issue with. I vaguely recall addressing this somewhere before, but I have no idea where that would have been. Yes, technically seeds don't "die", but they have the appearance of not being alive and need to be buried in the ground to grow (most of them, anyway) so speaking metaphorically, I think this makes sense. In verse 27, Jesus says something that prompts the SAB to ask, Did Jesus ask God to save him from crucifixion? I'd have to say at most, this is another instance of Jesus lying, which is not a contradiction, but it's probably worth examining the other verses where Jesus seems to contradict himself. Yes, Jesus says, "if it be possible, let this cup pass from me," but Jesus knows it's not possible to avoid crucifixion and fulfill God's will, so he follows with, "nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Although Jesus went willingly to the cross, it's understandable that he wasn't enthusiastic about it. Then something interesting happens; God the Father speaks out of the sky again, like he did at Jesus's baptism.

Jesus, in talking about his crucifixion, mentions that "now shall the prince of this world be cast out." This prompts the SAB to ask Who is the Lord of this world? Interestingly enough, I really covered this at the end of my post on Ruth chapter four, where I said God is the original owner of the earth, but gave it to Adam, who essentially sold it to Satan for a piece of fruit. My link to Revelation five there implies that there is a trust deed that Jesus will redeem from whoever currently owns it, which is likely Satan, since he essentially offered the world to Jesus as a temptation. So the answer is that Satan has it temporarily in his possession, but it ultimately belongs to God.

I answered the question of whether Jesus performed many signs in John chapter three. Does God want some to go to hell? and Who forces non-believers to disbelieve? are both closely related questions and have a lot of proof texts in common. It seems pretty evident that there seems to be contradiction in the first question, but the second one can be very easily dismissed: some people are influenced by Satan to disbelieve, but for many people who disbelieve, God solidifies their disbelief. It's a lot like what was said about the hardening of Pharaoh's heart; if you're stubborn, sometimes God entrenches your stubbornness. And really, for those verses shared by both pages, that's the explanation; but what about the others? Well, the Proverbs verse is just stating a fact: God made all people, both good and bad, and in ways we don't always fully understand, bad people have a purpose, too. The 2Thessalonians verse in a larger context is largely saying all of the things that were said in the above paragraph; Satan deceived them, they preferred the delusion, and so God reinforced it.

The chapter winds up with Jesus saying stuff about belief and judgment, with there being a side note about there being members of the Sanhedrin who believed, but were silent. I answered the question about whether Jesus judges people or not in John chapter five.

Neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead (John 11)

John chapter eleven is pretty much the turning point of John's gospel. Jesus does another miracle, and it's the biggest one, and after this it's just a countdown to Jesus's crucifixion.

Lazarus is sick, very sick, and his sisters, Martha and Mary, send a message to Jesus, knowing that Jesus is a healer. The Bible gives a side note that Mary is the one who anointed Jesus's feet, which is a scene we're going to see later in John's gospel. The SAB gives links to other anointing stories in the gospels, but I personally don't believe they are all the same story, because the details are off just enough. I'll save that for the actual story, though. The SAB links to an article discussing the possibility that Jesus was gay. I'm sure most Christians would dismiss the idea out of hand, but I myself have often wondered what Jesus's sexual orientation was. I don't believe Jesus ever actually had sex, but he was human, and the Bible says in Hebrews 4:15

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

So I feel like Jesus was not asexual, just celibate.

The SAB puts a footnote on verse 15, but in the footnote, it quotes verse four; I'm not sure if this is an error, because these two verses are definitely related matter. Jesus says Lazarus is not going to die, which I'm surprised the SAB doesn't mark as Jesus lying, because I feel that you can't skirt it here; Jesus lied about Lazarus. Jesus waits two days to go to Lazarus, apparently so that Lazarus will be very dead. When he finally sets out with his disciples, he informs them that Lazarus is dead.

The question of "Must everyone die?" was talked about most recently in John chapter eight. It's actually very interesting that Martha talks about "the resurrection at the last day" because it shows that while Old Testament Jews didn't have much of an idea of an afterlife, there is some theology about it that's more sophisticated in the first century. However, Jesus tells her he's here to grant something else.

John 11:35 is the shortest verse in the Bible, but a profound one; "Jesus wept." Jesus is not weeping for Lazarus, clearly, because he knows that situation is going to be cleared up in a moment. Jesus is weeping in commiseration with his friends who are in pain, because he feels their pain. Jesus feels for people, and isn't afraid to show his emotions. I feel that this is another way that people should strive to be like Jesus.

Jesus tells them to roll away the stone from the cave where Lazarus's body lay, and proceeds to pray. Should Christians pray in public? This is a good question, as Jesus does seem to say no to this practice in Matthew six. Yet here in our story, not only does Jesus pray publicly, but arguably for the purpose of showing off, which seems to be the point of the Matthew passage. I think the very specific point Jesus was making in Matthew was that there are people who pray in public because they want people to see how religious they are, when prayer should be about making a personal connection with God. I don't think what Jesus says in Matthew is intended to be a command so much as a guideline: prayer is not for showing off. While here in our passage, as I said, you could argue Jesus is showing off, it's not to make himself look better, but to reinforce the faith of the people in his audience. So, should Christians pray in public? Only if their motives are selfless in doing so.

Jesus calls Lazarus from the grave, and he comes out. Was Jesus the first to rise from the dead? The SAB is right that there were certainly people who came back from the dead before Jesus. The issue here is that the way in which Jesus rose from the dead was different. All of these people who came back from the dead listed on the page (except Samuel, who was just a spirit) were essentially revived; that is, they came back to being the live person that they were before. Jesus was resurrected, which, while the dictionary makes no particular distinction, is different in the Bible. Jesus came back, but not the same; he was in a glorified body which allowed him to be both physical and spiritual at the same time. Supposedly, this is what will happen to every believer in Jesus after they die, which is why 1Corinthians 15:20 talks about Jesus that way; Jesus's resurrection is the proof of more resurrection to come.

So the chapter ends with the Pharisees hearing about Jesus's miracle, and they are upset because they're worried that Jesus will become too popular and the Romans will have to put down a rebellion, ruining the way things are in Palestine. The high priest, Caiaphas, says not to worry, because they can see to it that Jesus dies to save everyone else, and apparently, while what he meant was that they would get Jesus out of the way, the Bible tells us that unknowingly he is being prophetic. Indeed, Jesus dies to save not just the nation, but the world. The Pharisees hatch a plot to have Jesus killed.

He was led as a sheep to the slaughter (John 10)

John chapter ten is more speeches by Jesus which, as I said sometime earlier, is a lot of John's gospel.

The SAB misinterprets verse eight; I don't think that Jesus is saying everyone everyone that came before him was a thief and a liar, but rather those that claimed to be the Messiah. I think it is mentioned in passing in the other gospels that there were actually a lot of people in that era who were claiming to be the Messiah. Who was the greatest prophet? There is something ironic about the Deuteronomy verse given here, and that's that it was written by Moses, the same guy who wrote Numbers 12:3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.) Generally, when there's a verse like that in the Bible, it means up until the time of this writing, it didn't happen, but this was written while Moses was still alive! Anyway, it doesn't say Moses was the greatest prophet, it just says there was never another like him which, in the sense that it notes, is true. So the issue is really between John the Baptist and Jesus. I think there is an understanding that Jesus is sort of in a class of his own, and furthermore, note what Luke 7:28 say as a whole: "...he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he [John the Baptist]." This verse seems to be saying that there is something special about Christians, and technically, John wasn't a Christian. Nonetheless, after all that babbling on, I feel the need to point out that none of the verses listed for Jesus talk specifically about Jesus as a prophet, leading me to say, the definitive answer here is John the Baptist was the greatest prophet.

Who is the greatest person? This is not a contradiction, because each of these verses is really saying something different. The verse about Solomon is saying that he's the wisest person who ever lived. As I just said above, the verses about John the Baptist are saying he's the greatest prophet who ever lived. The verses about "everyone in the kingdom of heaven" are just a comparison of greatness to John the Baptist. The verse about being humble is saying that the more humble you are, the greater you will be in the kingdom of heaven. And really, who was more humble than Jesus? As Philippians 2:6-8 says of Jesus,

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

The SAB says verse 16 is a false prophecy. Jesus talks about there being "other sheep I have, which are not of this fold" and that "there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." I think the SAB is thinking this means something other than what I understand it to be. Up until this point, Jesus has been almost exclusively preaching to Jews; the Jews are "this fold", and the "other sheep" are the gentiles. Jesus is saying the Gospel is going to spread outside of Palestine, and there will be one Christianity. (If the SAB is nitpicking about the multitude of Christian denominations, I don't think there will be any after the second coming.)

Jesus talks about laying down his life in verses 17 and 18, prompting the SAB to ask if Jesus committed suicide. This is an interesting question that I don't think a lot of people ponder enough. I mean, Jesus actually says, "No man taketh [my life] from me, but I lay it down of myself." This does sound like suicide. I would say yes, Jesus did effectively commit suicide because he was in complete control of the timing and manner of his death. I expect I will have a lot to say about this when I get there.

Is it possible to fall from grace? Boy this is a doozy of a question, and the standard answer sounds like a cop-out, but I'm going to give it, because it's Biblical. It's one of those things like predestination vs. free will, where it's complicated and sort of metaphysical. Yes, here in verse 28 and in various other parts of the Bible, it sounds like a believer can't fall from grace, while in others it seems to be talking about that very thing. The key is actually in the Bible in 1John 2:19:

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

In other words, if you "fell from grace" it indicates that you were never there in the first place. Using Jesus's terminology from our chapter, nobody can pluck Jesus's sheep from his hand, so if someone appears to have been turned away from Jesus, that just proves that they were never his sheep.

I already answered the question of whether Jesus is God in John chapter one, but the real interesting question here is How many gods are there? which the SAB brings up because Jesus quotes Psalm 82, which has a lot of suggestive language. I think I already answered this question a long time ago, but I'll give it another go. There is a very important sense that is given by the Bible--and is echoed by modern theologians--that anything you choose to worship becomes your god. In that sense, there are certainly many gods; people worship money, power, sex, beauty, food, nature, guns, drugs, and the list goes on. Most other religions' gods are just embodiment of these concepts. When the Bible says there is one God, it's stressing that there is one God that is a true God, while all other "gods" are lesser to the point of meaninglessness. So yes, the Bible admits the existence of other gods, but with a caveat.

He was restored, and saw every man clearly (John 9)

John chapter nine is actually a rather humorous story about Jesus healing a blind man, and the fallout from this act. You really need to understand cultural context here, and remember that the Pharisees hate Jesus and are looking for excuses to attack him and anyone who follows him.

So Jesus and his disciples see this blind man, and since they find out he's been blind since birth, the disciples want to know who's sin caused the blindness, the man's, or his parents? While Jesus doesn't disabuse them of the general notion that sickness is caused by sin, he clarifies that it's not the case here, but rather the man was blind for the purpose of allowing Jesus to do a miracle. Jesus heals the man by putting clay on his eyes made from spit and dust, and has him wash in the pool of Siloam.

Now that the man can see, everyone seems to be freaking out. People who know the previously blind man think it can't be him. They all are amazed, of course. The man tells the story, and while he knows that Jesus healed him, he doesn't know anything about Jesus, including of course what he looks like. Anyway, they take him to the Sanhedrin, and it turns out that this is once again a miracle performed on the sabbath. So a lot of the Pharisees, rather than being amazed by the miracle, are saying Jesus is a bad person for not keeping the sabbath! Some of them are saying, but how could a bad person heal blindness? So the Pharisees decide this must be a hoax, and they call the man's parents. Now you have to understand that the Sanhedrin had the power to kick people out of society, essentially, and everyone knows by now how they feel about Jesus, so when the parents arrive, they want no part of this. They stick to the bare facts and verify that he was born blind, but beyond that, they're saying, he's an adult, ask him! So the Pharisees turn back to the man and demand he denounce Jesus as a sinner. The man says he doesn't know anything about Jesus but that he performed a miracle. The Pharisees ask for more details, and the man says, why are you asking so many questions? Do you want to be Jesus's disciples? They get angry and go, non you're his disciple, we're disciples of Moses! We know God spoke to Moses, but we don't know about this Jesus guy! The man says, that's amazing; you don't know anything about him, but he cured my blindness! Nobody in the history of the world has ever done that! How could someone do that if they weren't from God? They have nothing left to say, so they kick him out (not just temporarily out of the Temple, but essentially out of Jewish society!).

So Jesus finds this guy, and tells him that he's the son of God, and the man believes and worships him. This is another important thing about Jesus for those who believe he's just a good person and not God: he accepts people worshipping him. There are a few instances in the Bible in which a person meets an angel, and starts to worship him; in every instance, the angel stops them and tells them they should only worship God. Jesus receiving worship is either appropriate because he's God, or it's actually a form of blasphemy. Anyway, Jesus says this cryptic thing about making people blind, although that's a miracle that we never see in the Bible; I believe it's because Jesus is talking about a sort of spiritual blindness. He's really saying that the spiritual leaders of the day are just going to be blind to the truth about Jesus.

Who makes people blind? There is no contradiction here because none of these verses are blanket statements. Some people are made blind by God, some are made blind by "fouls spirits", some are made blind by angels, and some are made blind by just natural processes. How did Jesus cure the blind man? There's no contradiction here. While there are similarities between these two passages, these are clearly two different blind men. The question of whether Jesus came to judge was answered in John chapter five.

I am the way, the truth, and the life (John 8:12-59)

So, back to John chapter eight, where Jesus is still arguing in the Temple. The questions about Jesus's witness of himself were answered in my super-long post on John chapter five, although I don't think I mentioned there the interesting claim, that Jesus makes here about being two witnesses, since he is a witness for himself and the Father is a witness; I'm not sure if he's talking about the Father's voice on the day of his baptism, or more generally the scripture, perhaps. I also talked about Jesus judging people earlier in that post.

Jesus mentions in verses 21 and 24 that people who don't believe in him "die in your sins." This is a reference to the idea that faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation, although as I've discussed several times in this blog, it's potentially more complicated. It's interesting that the SAB likes "the truth shall make you free" in verse 32, because while yes, I think we can all agree the truth is a good thing, Jesus is talking about himself (see John 14:6). Jesus is the truth, and he will set you free from the bondage of sin.(When he says "servant" in verses 34 and 35, think "slave".)

Interestingly, in verse 41, the Pharisees speak of being "born of fornication" which strongly implies they somehow know Jesus's parents weren't married when he was conceived. I find it interesting that this fact might be common knowledge. Jesus says of the Pharisees that their father is the devil, which is definitely some strong language, as the SAB notes.

Jesus says in verse 31, "If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." This provokes the SAB to ask, Must everyone die? which I answered in Genesis chapter five, but I should reexamine here. The thing about what Jesus is saying here is, well, taken literally, it's obviously not true. Christians die; ones of all denominations throughout the 2,000 years of church history without known exception have died. So what is Jesus really trying to tell his audience? I talked about this a bit elsewhere, including in my discussion on Hell in chapter five, where in verse 24, Jesus says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." There's a theological idea here that in addition to the physical life and death of the body, there is a spiritual life and death of the soul. Whether this "death" is eternal condemnation to Hell or an actual destruction of the soul through Hell fire is not entirely clear, but it's talked about several times in the book of Revelation, notably in 2:11b, "He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death," and 20:14, "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

There's an interesting line by Jesus here in verse 58, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." A lot of people say that Jesus never claimed to be God, but as the SAB notes, and the Pharisees as well, who pick up stones to kill him for blasphemy, Jesus is claiming to be God here. I answered the question of whether Jesus was God in John chapter one, where of course I said yes.

As the scripture hath said (John 7:53—8:11)

John 7:53—8:11 is an interesting little vignette for a number of reasons. One of them is that more recent scholarship than the King James Version suggests that it simply doesn't belong here. It's interesting to me that while common sense tells you the farther away from an original manuscript in time you go the less you can be sure of accuracy, in actuality, the reverse turns out to be true. The more time that passes, the more archeological evidence you collect, the more study of existing manuscripts, etc., and you actually get a better understanding. The ancient manuscripts that have been collected of the New Testament show that this passage was almost certainly not part of the original book of John, as some don't have it, some have it in other places in the book, and some even have it in a few places in Luke's Gospel. It doesn't belong.

That being said, there's something about this story that seems so appropriately Jesus-like. Jesus stands up against hypocritical morality. Jesus sides with an outcast. Jesus forgives a sinner. If it's fake, it's a remarkably authentic fake, and I, along with many other Christians, really like this story. Anyway, since it's in the KJV, we deal with it.

There's a number of noteworthy things about this story. The men who bring this woman supposedly caught in adultery seem to be missing something; adultery is usually committed with a partner, yes? Where is the man? Also, it's a great mystery what Jesus is writing on the ground, but many have suspected that whatever he wrote, it played a part in what unfolded. Perhaps he wrote the names of the men and their own sins? One more thing, and I admit I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think in the Talmud it actually says that when someone is to be stoned to death, the people throwing the stones must be free of sin, so Jesus is using their own rule against them. Oh and I thought of another: Jesus never says adultery isn't a capital crime, he simply refuses to carry out the sentence.

The SAB asks how should adultery be punished? Well, it's pretty clear there in Leviticus, isn't it? As I just said in the last paragraph, Jesus never denied the Law. However, the Law was for the Jews, and doesn't apply to anyone else. I'm surprised that the SAB only puts these two verses there as there are a lot of instances in the Bible of adultery both being punished and not being punished. When I eventually get back to finish the Old Testament, I've got a heck of a story for 2Samuel 11.

Does God approve of capital punishment? Without even looking at the given verses, I know the answer is yes. There are a lot of things in the Mosaic Law that are capital crimes. The fact that there are people who committed these crimes without being put to death (and as I said above about adultery, I'm sure there are more than two instances in the Bible) doesn't negate the fact that these penalties exist. Once again, these are laws specifically for Jews.

Now, back to verse 12, which should be immediately following chapter seven without interruption.

A righteous man hateth lying (John 7)

There's an important thing to say about the opening verse of John chapter seven that's related to antisemitism which I may have already noted elsewhere. When the Bible says Jesus is avoiding "the Jews" it's important to understand that generally with that definite article, the Bible is referring to the Sanhedrin, the council of Jewish leaders who were located in Jerusalem. It's definitely not talking about Jews in general, because Galilee was an area primarily populated by Jews as well. It's actually rather unfortunate that many of the writers of the New Testament used this shorthand because I imagine it has been used historically as an excuse for antisemitism among Christians.

The SAB says it's absurd that Jesus's brothers didn't believe in him, but I'm not sure why. I imagine having grown up with Jesus as a brother made him seem too mundane to possibly be the Messiah.

Now, the SAB brings up the meaty question Is it OK to lie? Now I thought I would have covered this in Exodus chapter one, but apparently I didn't; I've no idea why. The reason it's particularly meaty here is that it appears in verse eight of our chapter that Jesus lies! While I can certainly point out that Jesus says, "I go not up yet unto this feast," making it technically not a lie, one can't deny that Jesus is making a statement with the intent to deceive. So what is the Bible's stance on lying, and is there a contradiction here? My position on this matter has always been that while lying in general is bad, there is such a thing as situational ethics; you should tell the truth unless telling the truth will cause something terrible to happen. In most of the examples given of people lying in the Bible and being right to do so, there's a matter of life or death. The Egyptian midwives are lying to save the lives of Jewish babies; Rahab is lying to save the lives of the Israelite spies; David is lying to save his own life; and that may be the reason Jesus says what he does here, because letting his disciples know that he's going to the feast might in some way endanger him. (Perhaps the reason Elisha lies to the king of Syria is so that events unfold as they do in the next few verses, and that serves to save lives in some way? I don't know.)

So Jesus goes to the feast eventually, and we see there's a lot of controversy about him. Some people like him, while others--perhaps the Sanhedrin in particular, or various others who are listening to the Sanhedrin--think he's a charlatan. Eventually, Jesus appears at the Temple to preach, and a lot of people are impressed with what he has to say. When Jesus says that there are people trying to kill him, some people accuse him of being possessed which, as the SAB rightly notes, is apparently a common thing (either in actuality, or simply the culture assumed anyone with mental problems must be possessed). Jesus brings up the issue that is between him and the Sanhedrin: the sabbath. Whether you should keep the sabbath was addressed in John chapter five, but Jesus brings up something that I meant to bring up there, but no matter, because the discussion is here in the text: circumcision. As Jesus points out here, a male child is circumcised on his eighth day, and if that day happens to be the sabbath, they don't postpone the procedure to the ninth day. It's arguably a breaking of the sabbath, but Jews do it all the time! As I said about situational ethics in the last post about lying, so it applies to the sabbath; it's a rule...unless something more important comes up. If circumcision is important enough, surely healing a paraplegic should be acceptable.

To judge or not to judge? The SAB brings up this question, which is actually one of the more common questions non-Christians have, or at least they know Matthew 7:1, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." While there does appear to be a contradiction here, the real distinction is that there are different kinds of judgment. It's just a natural fact that humans judge each other, and there's nothing wrong with most kinds of judgment. The places where the Bible warns us not to judge are referring to the kind of judgment where you condemn another person, whether you fully think, "That person is going to Hell," or maybe even just, "That person is really evil." In a few of these verses, it's said that when you judge, you make yourself answerable to the same standards of judgment, and you probably wouldn't want that.

Jesus makes another reference to "scripture" in this speech that, as the SAB notes, is not really at all clear as to what scripture he's referring to. There are a few references to "living water" in the Old Testament, but none of them are anything like what Jesus is saying here, so it's a mystery.

When was the Holy Ghost given? I'm sure I covered this one before, but I'll answer it again rather than hunt it down. In addition to the New Testament verses given here, there are a few Old Testament references to "the Spirit of God" that probably fit here. The thing of it is, there was a specific event at Pentecost when the Holy Ghost was given en masse to all of the believers, and thereafter, upon conversion to Christianity, to all other Christians. The Holy Ghost was always there (from Genesis 1:2!), but the "giving of the Holy Ghost" is referring to the time from Pentecost onwards.

Only be sure that thou eat not the blood (John 6)

John chapter six thankfully looks a lot easier than chapter five was. Especially since I already answered "Can God be seen?" in chapter one.

So, this chapter has a few miracles, the first of which was feeding five thousand men. Funny thing that occurs to me about this miracle is that I've heard many sermons on Jesus feeding large crowds, and typically they will say at some point, "This is five thousand men; imagine how big the crowd was if you counted women and children, too!" I think this is making a bit of a possibly unwarranted assumption: that the Apostles literally did a head count, but said, "Let's not count the women and children." While I don't think there's a reason to think the number is hyperbole, I really doubt that it was anything more than a rough estimate, and if it was, who knows what exactly was counted? Some people have suggested that rather than a miracle, this is a story about a crowd of people who became very generous when they saw a young boy give up his lunch for Jesus. It's not out of the question, but the fact that there was so much food gathered up afterwards makes it seem unlikely; would these people be so generous they gave more than was needed to feed everyone? Anyway, shortly after this, Jesus walks on water which, as a miracle, is of course antiscientific and absurd to the SAB. Go figure.

Verse 29 is an interesting note in the discussion of salvation by faith vs. works: Jesus says believing in him is "the work of God". Verse 46 once again raises the question of whether God can be seen, which I answered in John chapter one.

Verse 53 has Jesus talking for the first time in this Gospel about eating his body and drinking his blood. Christians of all denominations take this to be talking about communion, but there is a lot of disagreement on what communion really is, when it should be taken, and other things. As the SAB seems to be implying in a clever way, Catholics believe that when the elements of communion are blessed, they literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus, a process known as transubstantiation, while Protestants believe it's entirely symbolic. I once heard a pastor point out that since Christians are taking the communion, and it becomes part of them, then since Christians as a whole are called by the Bible "the body of Christ" then there is a sense that transubstantiation happens in the end anyway.

Is it OK to eat blood? This is a straightforward no, since it is forbidden not just to Jews, but it was forbidden before the Jewish Law and by the leaders of the early church. Yes, Jesus tells people to drink his blood, but this is obviously a special exception, whether it's only symbolic drinking of his blood, or somehow literal. And going back to the subject communion, in case John 6:55 is not quite clear enough in the KJV, the New International Version reads, "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." So Jesus does seem very serious about this. However, the wine and bread of communion originated from the Jewish Passover, where it is also symbolic of blood in part.

Lastly, the SAB makes note on verse 70, about Jesus saying one of the Apostles is a "devil", that supposedly Jesus made a mistake. It's definitely not a mistake, as Jesus knows about Judas's betrayal before Judas is even called. You can see here that Jesus is aware already, and when you look at the evening of Jesus's betrayal, you see that Jesus doesn't just know he's going to be betrayed, he actually tells Judas to betray him! More on this when I get to John 13:27-30.

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.