Timothy our brother (Acts 16)

Acts chapter 16 opens with a vingette that seems to contradict the previous chapter, and the SAB takes it that way. Is circumcision required? This was really answered in chapter 15, which oddly enough isn't linked to on this page, but I suppose there's no specific verse to link to there. The answer is no for Christians, yes for Jews. (If the question is required for salvation, it's a straight across the board "no".) The Old Testament passages are all for Jews (as well as the Luke passage, because Jesus was Jewish), and most of the New Testament passages are addressed to Gentile Christians. Timothy, whose mother was a Jew and father was a Greek, is a believer, and wants to go with Paul, but for some reason, Paul decides Timothy needs to be circumcised. It's not made particularly clear why Paul decides this, especially so soon after the Jerusalem council; it may be because what with Timothy's mother being Jewish Paul felt a need for Timothy to have some Jewish cred, so to speak. (Paul notes in Galatians that he didn't compel Titus to be circumcised because he was Greek.)

I already responded to whether the Gospel should be preached to everyone in Acts chapter one, where I pointed out, as I will again, that Phrygia and Galatia are in Asia, so it's not even very clear what verse six is trying to say! Paul has a dream about a man in Macedonia asking for help, so Paul goes there. The SAB, always with an attention to detail, notes that the narrative switches to first-person, and wonders why. The standard Christian explanation is that Luke (the author of Acts) must have joined Paul around this time. Anyway, shortly after they get to Macedonia, they meet Lydia, and convert her. The SAB's suggestion that Lydia might be a lesbian because she sold purple (I assume purple clothes rather than the actual dye) seems a bit of a stretch, as purple is more likely associated with nobility; it is interesting that she does appear to be an independent woman, which may have been more common in Europe. (Note I'm not saying Lydia definitely wasn't a lesbian, I just don't think the evidence is compelling enough.)

Paul's encounter with the demon possessed woman is actually pretty absurd, I have to agree. She's demon possessed, but follows Paul around hyping him up. Apparently there's something annoying or otherwise distracting about it, and she is demon possessed, so Paul casts the demon out of her. Her owners are pissed off, because they were making money off of her, so they bring Paul and Silas to the rulers of the town where they are beaten and thrown into prison. That night, while they're sitting in prison in chains, they are singing praise songs, and a miraculous earthquake happens, that opens the doors of the prison and loosens everyone's chains. The warden wakes up, and seeing the doors open, makes to commit suicide, as apparently he's going to be in trouble. Paul calls out to him, letting him know they are still there, and not to kill himself. He comes in to Paul and Silas and asks how he can be saved. Paul gives him a curious answer, saying if he believes in Jesus, he and his whole family will be saved! There are actually Christians who believe that if the husband is saved, that covers the whole household. I actually used to know a witch online who said she had a husband who was a pastor, and as far as he was concerned, she was saved because he was. So the SAB has to ask, Is salvation by faith alone? I'm sure I've answered this question elsewhere at least in part, but as the page doesn't have a link, I'll address it here in full. The answer is yes, but it's complicated. There are a few things that need to be said that may address the "no" verses. First of all, despite the fact that a person is "saved" doesn't mean they won't be judged; there seems to be both a judgment concerning salvation and a judgment concerning rewards and punishment that is separate. Also, many of the Old Testament passages are talking about judgment here on earth, the idea that God rewards good people and punishes bad people. Also, there is another important teaching that is especially accentuated in the book of James: that faith, if it is genuine, should result in good works, and if the good works are not present in a person's life, you should question their faith. Oh, and said works also include one's words that one speaks. So, for those passages not covered by these issues... The Matthew five verse I explained in Matthew five, basically saying that Jesus is using hyperbole to say that you can't get in to Heaven on righteousness. Matthew 19 in the broader context is illustrating that most rich people are violating the first Commandment by having money as their god. The Romans two passage is, I think, being taken wrong, as the broader context of the entire book is salvation by faith; perhaps Paul is saying, as Jesus sometimes did, that nobody is capable of keeping the whole of the law, because in the end, we are all sinners. The Philippians two verse is not at all clear in and of itself, and certainly could be saying to keep the faith. Revelation 22 is a tricky one, but I think it can certainly be said that Jesus had Commandments (the SAB has them all tracked, in fact), which were mainly about faith. If a husband believes, is his wife saved also? I think it's arguable that the point of all of these verses is that the faith of one spouse has a great influence on the other, although as I said above, some people believe the answer is a simple "yes".

So, the warden puts his faith in Jesus, and is baptized, along with his family. Just because it doesn't say what the rest of his family thought about all of this doesn't automatically imply that they were baptized against their will; it's entirely possible that the whole family made confessions of faith as well. Lack of information doesn't imply that something didn't happen, but it's certainly true that it leaves us wondering. In the morning, the order is given to let Paul and Silas go. Paul is apparently offended that they arrested them publicly, but want to release him privately. The people in charge hear about this, and the fact that Paul and Silas are Roman citizens, which is serious business, since there are special rules about how you treat citizens, and they haven't been treated properly. The rulers release them and ask them to leave the city. After visiting with Lydia one more time, they depart.

He was received up into heaven (Acts 1)

So, back to the New Testament, and Acts chapter one. Some people believe that Luke's gospel and the book of Acts were actually intended as documentary evidence for the trial of Paul, the former being an overview of Christianity and the latter the story of Paul and his role in the church. There are a lot of supposed contradictions here that are pretty easy to deal with. Right off the top, Does the gospel of Luke contain everything that Jesus did? No, of course not, and I think it's silly to imply Luke is making such a claim. What is most likely is that Luke is saying he included everything important that Jesus did, or even quite possibly the "all" represents the opposite Venn diagram of what the SAB implies, i.e. that all of Luke's gospel contains things Jesus did (which is not strictly true either, but we're just taking "all" too seriously here).

I answered when Jesus ascended in John chapter 20; the answer is 40 days as described here, the only passage that gives a specific time frame. Where did Jesus tell his disciples to go after his resurrection? It's always been my understanding that Jesus told them to go to Galilee, where they would see him, and then back to Jerusalem, where they would see him again and he would ascend into Heaven. Sure, it can be confusing. Should the gospel be preached to everyone? Yes! There is some information missing on this page, I would say. While Jesus's ministry during his time on earth was generally limited to the Jews in Judea and Galilee, it's recorded that he went to the Samaritans in John 4, and the the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15 was ministered to. After Jesus was resurrected, he told his disciples to bring the Gospel to all people, so this apparent limiting of preaching to Jews only seems to have been for pre-resurrection times only. In addition to this, the passage from Acts 16 quoted is a bit odd, as Galatia is actually in Asia! Clearly Paul did preach in Asia, as he established several churches there, so whatever is going on in Acts 16:6 was temporary. (The seven churches written to in the first few chapters of Revelation are all in Asia, actually.) It's understood historically that the Apostles actually went pretty far with the Gospel just in the first century; some went to the area around the Black Sea, while others went to Parthia, which may have included parts of modern-day India. The Gospel also went pretty quickly to Ethiopia, perhaps by way of the eunuch mentioned in Acts chapter eight?

The "science" note on verse eleven I think can be outright dismissed as silly; just because someone somewhere had a weird interpretation of a Bible verse doesn't mean everyone has to care. (I assume that since it was brought up, it may have mattered to Galileo, but what happened to him is a whole can of worms outside of my scope here. I've read a lot about Galileo, and it's fascinating both what he accomplished as a scientist and what persecution he faced from the church because of it.)

What were the names of the Apostles? I actually addressed this in Matthew chapter ten, but I probably wasn't quite as thorough as I should have been. I honestly don't think there is such a thing as a "rank" of Apostles (although, yes, Peter is always listed first and Judas Iscariot is always last), so the real issue is discrepancy in the actual names. I think it's a safe assumption that Simon the Canaanite and Simon the Zealot are the same person; the hard one is whether Lebbaeus Thaddeus is the same person as Judas, brother of James. If you don't want a contradiction, you'd have to assume so; the Bible doesn't say they are, but it doesn't say they aren't, either. As I said in my previous comments, Lebbaeus Thaddeus seems to possibly be a nickname, so it's not out of the question. How many believers were there at the time of the ascension? I don't think this is a real problem. There's nothing in the text to indicate that these two verses are describing the same moment in time. I think the number given here in Acts is not the total number of believers, but the number that happened to be present when Peter was speaking. The "above five hundred" in 1Corinthians actually doesn't necessarily even mean believers; this could have happened in Galilee to a mixed group of believers and nonbelievers (the nonbelievers would mostly have not been aware that Jesus was resurrected, not having been witnesses of his death). It's really not specified. When was the Holy Ghost given? I know I've addressed this before, maybe several times, but I'll try and give a definitive answer here and make sure it's linked to on the page. As Jesus said earlier in this very chapter, there was a special event that happened on Pentecost when the believers were "baptized with the Holy Ghost". This is a special giving of the Holy Ghost that was for all believers in Jesus, and many theologians believe that from that day forward, the Holy Ghost was given to every believer from the time of their conversion. However, the Holy Ghost existed from eternity along with the other two persons of the Trinity, and there were special times and people before Pentecost that had the anointing of the Holy Ghost. The existence of these people is not a contradiction to the fact that the Holy Ghost was given on Pentecost; it's just that what happened on Pentecost was a major change in the role the Holy Ghost played in the Bible. Before Pentecost, even those mentions in the Old Testament of the "Spirit of God" are referring to the Holy Ghost.

Okay, on verse 18, there are three questions that are all intertwined, so I will answer them together: Who bought the potter's field? How did Judas die? What did Judas do with the silver? I actually addressed these in Matthew chapter 27, but let me reiterate here as a single narrative that puts this all together. Judas feels remorse for betraying Jesus, so he returns to the priests, and throws the silver down in front of them. He goes out and finds a field with a tree in it, and hangs himself on it. After his body hangs for some time, it somehow falls down and breaks open on the ground (and honestly, it doesn't make sense for a living human to burst open just from falling down; he would have to either fall from some height or have something wrong with him, like a partially decomposed body). The priests don't know what to do with the silver, because it's blood money, and they can't take it back, but they decide to buy the field Judas hanged himself in to serve as a cemetery; because the money was Judas's, in a sense he vicariously bought the field through the priests. The only thing not completely tied up by this narrative is why the field is called "the field of blood"; the answer is for both reasons given.

Okay, so the Psalms quoted by Peter were, in fact, written by David; I don't know why the SAB says they weren't. Yes, technically they weren't about Judas, but prophetically, scripture can have different shades of meaning, and I don't understand the basis for picking on Peter's choices like this.

Does God know and see everything? Yes, he does, and the verses being suggested to make a point against this are mostly misunderstood. Let me clear out a bunch of them by three statements: (1) Just because God asks a question doesn't mean he doesn't already know the answer, (2) the fact that people sometimes try to hide from God doesn't mean the attempt is in any way useful, and (3) when God tests someone it's so they will know themselves. In Genesis 11, the fact that God came down to see Babel doesn't imply he couldn't see it before, he's just putting in a more personal appearance for unknown reasons. Genesis 18:17 says nothing whatsoever about God not knowing something. In Genesis 18:20-21, God already knows about Sodom and Gomorrah, but for some reason feels it appropriate to have a face-to-face encounter with these people, so to speak (perhaps to call out comparatively righteous people like Lot?). I believe Hosea 8:4 is implying that God was in no way a part of the process of setting up these kings. Does God know what is in everyone's heart? I'm not sure why this is a separate question, but the answer is pretty much the same.

Does the Bible condemn gambling? This is a particularly interesting question for me on a personal level, because my degree is in mathematics, and my senior thesis was on gambling theory, with a particular focus on blackjack. I also at the end of my senior year took a class on the history of mathematics, and so for a project in that class, I did a report on the history of gambling. The simple answer to this question is "no" as the SAB itself admits, but it gets complicated because a lot of religious people have suggested that gambling is sinful, and have suggested verses in the Bible to support that idea. The thing I want to say about the history of gambling is that most forms of gambling have their roots in religious practices of divination. There certainly are places in the Bible where gambling is happening, but a lot of what the SAB implies to be gambling is just standard forms of divination. It simply was very common in many cultures, including the ancient Jewish world, to pray for the guidance of a god and then cast lots, or roll dice, or some such thing. So with all that being said, there's something to be said about items in both categories. Most of the verses on the "yes" side are about getting rich in general, which the Bible seems to be against. Proverbs 13:11 does seem particularly applicable to gambling, however, as it talks about "wealth gotten by vanity" (rather than hard work). 2Thessalonians 3:10 perhaps could be applied to gamblers, because most people don't consider gambling "work", but it's a controversial verse anyway. The Roman soldiers casting lots for Jesus's robe are probably the clearest case of actual gambling in the Bible, and it's pretty clear it's not something to look up to. As for all the verses in the "no" section, those are just standard methods of divination, as I said above. So here in Acts, the lot falls on Matthias to be the new member of "the twelve", and we never hear him mentioned again.

And Ahithophel said unto Absalom (2Samuel 17)

So, there's not much in 2Samuel chapter 17 so I'll make it short. Ahithophel suggests a battle plan to take down David. Absalom wants to hear what Hushai thinks, and Hushai suggests a different plan. Everyone likes Hushai's plan better, supposedly because it's God's will for Ahithophel to be a failure. Hushai sends word to David to plan accordingly, and David successfully hides. Ahithophel commits suicide. The SAB marks this suicide as injustice, but I don't know what's unjust about suicide, as one does it to oneself. In my opinion, this is more absurd than unjust; I mean, Ahithophel gets rejected a total of one time, and he ends his life over it? What the heck? Who was Amasa'a father? I notice that in this chapter, Amasa's father is said to be Ithra, while in other places, it's Jether, but Ithra and Jether are just alternate spellings of the same Hebrew name. I don't think there's an easy answer, it's just an error in one place or the other.

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.

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.

It is finished (Matthew 27)

Matthew 27 opens with the story of Judas Iscariot having second thoughts about his betrayal of Jesus. As with Peter, this leads to a series of interrelated questions: "How did Judas die?", "Who bought the Potter's field?", and "What did Judas do with the silver?" The standard skeptical solution to these questions is that there are two stories. In one, Judas throws away the silver and hangs himself, and the priests buy the field. In the other, Judas takes the silver and buys the field wherein he falls down and dies. The apologist's fusing together of these stories into one coherent whole is that Judas threw away the money and went and hanged himself. Having hanged there for some time, the rope broke and Judas' body fell down and burst in a field. The priests, who had this money that they refused to take back, decided that this money should go towards purchasing the field in which Judas died, and thus Judas vicariously bought the field after his death. For either or both reasons, the field became known as "the field of blood". As the SAB notes, verse 8 saying "unto this day" indicates that the Gospel of Matthew was written long after the events happened; certainly nobody is suggesting that the Gospel accounts were written immediately after the events they record; I'd have to look it up but even generous estimates say something like 30 years later for the earliest.

As for the misquote in verses 9-10, I've heard it said that the Jewish Canon had a bunch of minor prophets all in one book with Jeremiah, so misattributing a prophecy to Jeremiah could happen at times because of that, although I suppose it's still technically an error.

"Was Jesus silent during his trial?" I would say that he wasn't. Note that while verse 12 says "he answered nothing" this comes right after verse 11's "And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest." I think that the point that Matthew 27:14 and Mark 15:5 are making is that Jesus never said a word in his own defense. Nonetheless, Pilate seemed to be inclined to believe that Jesus was innocent and tried to have him released, to no avail.

Verse 25 does indeed blame the Jews for the death of Jesus, but I think those that use this verse as an excuse for Antisemitism conveniently forget that Jesus forgave his killers on the cross.

Eventually Jesus ends up in a robe, but it's not clear who put the robe on him nor actually what color the robe was. I'm willing to concede there are errors coming up here, but they are errors that are tough to fully pin down. Both Herod and Pilate were governors who had Roman soldiers working for them (I think only Luke has Jesus being brought before Herod) and there may have been some confusion in the order of events. Also, Jesus was so beaten and bloodied at this time that it may have been hard for bystanders to tell the color of the robe anyway, what with it being likely soaked with Jesus' blood.

"Who carried Jesus' cross?" While John's Gospel fails to mention Simon of Cyrene, that doesn't mean that he didn't exist, nor does his mention in the other Gospels mean that Jesus did not bear his cross part of the way.

"What did the soldiers give Jesus to drink?" is another question that the SAB brings up, but I think this is a manufactured contradiction. If you check the context of the verses on the linked page, you'll see that the offerings of drinks were at at least two separate moments, as the Matthew and Mark verses were before the crucifixion while Luke and John were during the crucifixion. I would suggest that Jesus was offered a drink three times, twice before his crucifixion, and then once on the cross.

"What did the sign over Jesus' head say?" While it's true as the SAB points out that none of the Gospels agree on the exact wording of the sign, they're pretty close to a consensus, and it doesn't bother me.

"Did both thieves revile Jesus?" This is one I've heard a few times, and I've also heard the standard reply, which is that both thieves reviled Jesus, but one of them had a change of heart, which for some reason is only recorded in Luke's Gospel.

"What were the last words of Jesus?" I can't say for sure, as this is definitely a question with no clear answer, but I will note one thing about the passage here in Matthew: in verse 50, it says that Jesus "cried again with a loud voice", suggesting that verse 46 was not his last words. It doesn't solve the question, but it narrows it down a bit.

"When did the Temple curtain rip?" It must have been a while since I read the Gospels, since I thought this event was only recorded in Matthew. My thoughts about having read this before will, I think, deal with the contradiction: Does it really matter? As far as I can fathom, since Jesus was killed outside of the city, and the veil of the temple was inside the city, inside the inner chamber of the temple, there is no possible way that there was an eyewitness to both of these events simultaneously. I would say it happened when Jesus died, and leave it at that.

"Was Jesus the first to rise from the dead?" I actually addressed this back in 1Samuel 28, but perhaps, no definitely a bit more could be added here. When the verses in the first column speak of Jesus being the first to rise from the dead, they're talking about something very specific; they're talking about rising from the dead to eternal life. There are a number of other individuals who were revived from death to continue their life (as happens today under normal circumstances in hospitals and such) and at least one instance in the Bible of a person's ghost being brought back to speak from beyond the grave. Now the odd occurrence that is recorded here in verses 52-53 is strange in many ways, since only Matthew records it, and it's not clear what the significance of it is. In short, I don't think there is a contradiction, but I'd be inclined to agree that this passage is a strange one.

"What did the centurion call Jesus?" Some have suggested that in fact there were two centurions present, and that each one said something different. It's also possible that a single centurion said two things.

"From where did the women watch?" I think the answer to this issue is that there were many women watching, and while most of them were far away, a small group of them (those mentioned in John's Gospel) were nearby.

"Who buried Jesus?" I don't think there is a contradiction here. Joseph of Arimathea took Jesus' body, and with Nicodemus' help, buried him in a sepulchre. As it happens, both of these men were members of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council, so it all fits together.

Saying, Behold, Saul is dead, thinking to have brought good tidings (2Sam 1)

As 2Samuel (which, as I think I said earlier, was not really a separate book originally) begins, we have yet another story about Amalekites. An Amalekite comes to David and claims that he has killed Saul, prompting the SAB to ask how it could be possible for an Amalekite to exist, given the history of various attempts throughout the reign of Saul to obliterate them. Note however that right here in this chapter, the very first verse mentions David's "slaughter of the Amalekites". I think it would be quite a stretch to claim that the author of this passage didn't notice this juxtaposition as he wrote it. That being the case, I take it as my understanding that all these military attempts at wiping out the Amalekites keep managing to miss a few. David has clearly missed at least one.

Although I already addressed the issue of how Saul died, there's some interesting language here that may further shed light on the matter. If this is a true story, (and once again, with no corroborating witnesses, this may be a fabrication) then Saul's last words were, "Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me." This indicates to me that Saul wanted to be dead, but wasn't, which may fall in line with my suggestion of a failed suicide. Furthermore, the Amalekite says, "So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen:" which indicates to me that Saul had sustained mortal wounds before the Amalekite got there. Actually, if we assume that the story from the last chapter is true, then this story meshes with it pretty well, and for that fact I'm inclined to believe the Amalekite's tale.

The Amalekite delivers the crown and bracelet that Saul was wearing to David, apparently knowing that these royal things now belong to him, and perhaps hoping to be treated favorably for being the one who killed Saul. David is not pleased, even with it supposedly being a mercy killing, and orders one of his men to kill the Amalekite. I don't really know why David would do this. It may link back to the reasons I formerly discussed as to why David himself refused to lay a finger on Saul. Violent? Definitely. Unjust? I personally agree with that assessment. Intolerant? Maybe if we're assuming that David's killing him at least in part for being an Amalekite.

David composes a little poem as a eulogy for Saul and Jonathan, talking about what great warriors they were, and how Saul made Israel into a great nation. Also, he speaks of the great love he had for Jonathan, which need not be interpreted as sexual love.

So Saul died for his transgression (1Sam 31)

Here in the final chapter of this book, the SAB has only one question: "How did Saul die?" The page pointing out the apparent inconsistency gives four possible answers. Now while one can easily dismiss the account of the Amalekite as a lie (after all, he had no witnesses, and apparently assumed that telling David that he had killed Saul would curry favor) I don't think it's necessary, and besides, preachers who cover that story rather like to point out the irony of Saul being killed by an Amalekite, since he was ordered by God to wipe them out and failed.

The thing is, all four of these explanations can be correct in a sense. As I've said before, in some sense, everyone gets killed by God, so no need to explain that. Saul was killed by the Philistines because he died while in battle with them, being struck a mortal blow by Philistine arrows. Knowing that he was as good as dead he endeavored to kill himself rather than be subjected to torture. It may be that he failed to kill himself, and the Amalekite ended up landing the final death blow upon Saul.

The battle is a resounding defeat, and Saul dies along with his three sons, and many of the troops. The next day, Saul's body is captured by the Philisties, who hang his head on the wall of the city of Bethshan.

Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith (Judges 9)

Yikes! If you think politics are ugly today, you obviously have no idea what it was like in previous centuries. Here in Judges 9, we get a taste of dirty politics from a few millennia ago. (Once again, let me lead off with the caveat that we can't assume that God approves of any of this, with one exception that must be addressed. We'll get there.)

Having made a number of very bad decisions in his personal life, Gideon, who already had numerous wives, also gets a concubine in the city of Shechem. This woman bears him a son, which Gideon names "Abimelech", a name which means "my father is the king". This is an odd choice of names for a man who claimed that he didn't want to be king, and also for a man who was famous for fighting off pagans, when "Abimelech" is apparently a common name for local pagan kings.

So after Gideon passes on, Abimelech decides to make his move. He goes to the men of his own city and suggests that they should back him as the next leader of Israel, since he's a local boy. They agree, and he goes off to kill his 70 half-brothers, only one of which escapes. The men of Shechem crown him king. (Here's a fun bit of Bible trivia to throw at your favorite Bible-believer: ask them who the first King of Israel was. A lot of people will say, "David." Then you say, "Nope, guess again!" They think for a moment, then say, "Oh, yeah! It was Saul, right?" Then you can smugly say, "Nope, it was Abimelech, Judges chapter 9." Of course, then they might argue how technically Abimelech doesn't count, and they might be right, but you've had your fun.)

Now, the SAB laughs at the idea of talking trees, and while yes, it's absurd, it's pretty clear from the context that Jotham's story about the king of the trees is a parable; a fable-like story with a moral point. The point of the story is one that we can take to heart today, even: most people want a strong leader over their country, but the fact is that often the set of people who would make good leaders and the set of people who actually want to be leaders don't have members in common. (The side-note about alcohol is addressed here, basically that alcohol is good in moderation.)

After Jotham's speech, we come to the place where we are told God directly intervenes, and therefore must address it. God sends "an evil spirit" to deal with Shechem, and causes a lot of trouble for them, and for Abimelech in particular. This is an odd moment, no doubt, and actually one among many in which it seems very clear that God is doing something evil, which should be against God's character, right? It's my understanding that many Jews have a belief which is shocking to Christians, but I think holds some possible merit: that Satan and other "evil" beings are actually servants of God in a strange fashion. God Himself, due to His own holiness, simply can't do certain things Himself. Thus, He has servants such as Satan to carry out certain tasks, such as tempting evil men to their own destruction, as we see here. This explanation of course would seem distasteful to most Christians, and I expect the Christian point of view would be that this is more of a passive activity on God's part; not so much that He actively sent this spirit upon them, but that He simply allowed it in response to their sin. Either way, the message is clear: Abimelech and the men of Shechem have done evil, and they are going to reap a penalty for it.

The SAB has on odd note about "the men of the tower of Shechem", claiming apparently that 1,000 people are way too many to house in a tower. Well, I have two thoughts about that. One, as the SAB suggests jokingly, I suggest in seriousness that this may have been a really big tower, the text gives no size. (Also, names may be deceptive, as the "Tower of London" is not a single tower, but a palace/fortress comprised of a walled area with about 20 literal towers.) Two, the text mentions "the men of the tower of Shechem", not "the men who lived in the tower of Shechem". There probably was some sort of fortress where these 1,000 people lived that was famous for having a tower, not being a tower. I could be wrong because once again, history is not my best subject, but I believe a tower in those days was not just a defense for itself, but for any walled area nearby, and these people may have simply lived in a walled area adjoining the tower.

Abimelech dies in an odd way. A woman tosses a rock on top of him, and knowing he is about to die, he calls out to his armor-bearer to kill him so that people can't say that he was killed by a woman. Yeah, it's sexist and sort of weird, what can you say? Well, other than the fact that this strange dying wish was apparently a failure. (This bears some similarities to the death of Saul.)

The last note here is on the comment that killing his 70 brothers was less of a crime against them than it was a crime against their father. There are numerous cultural reasons for this sort of statement as I understand it. First of all, it's common in the Bible and in that culture to consider a family to be a collective entity representing the father. Second, and closely related to that, it's considered a very good thing to have many children, and now, Gideon's heritage is essentially gone. Thirdly, even with all the bad stuff that Gideon did in his life, if his story had just ended with chapter 8, his would have been one of the best, at least in this book. Now, it's pretty much especially shameful with this bloody footnote. Murder is an odd thing, I've always said, since the "victim" does not suffer once the act is complete. Those who suffer are the friends and family. Now that everyone in this story is dead and buried, Gideon's children are simply forgotten, but Gideon's heritage is a serious blemish on the face of Israel's history.