A lying tongue is but for a moment (Acts 5)

Okay, I thought it might happen; Acts chapter five is misunderstood here. Maybe it's harder to understand in the KJV, but verse four is trying to clarify the matter here:

Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Peter is saying here that the land belonged Ananias and Sapphira, and was therefore theirs to do with whatever they wanted. Maybe the distinction is not so great, but the sin wasn't keeping some of the money; the sin was lying about doing so. Verse three likewise Peter isn't talking about keeping the money, but keeping the real price. So, is this story violent, cruel, and unjust? Well, there's nothing indicating this was a painful death for them, so I would say no to violent and cruel; unjust is subjective. It's not really clear whether, as the SAB suggests, they were scared to death, or whether God struck them down for their sin. I'm not sure which would be considered more likely to be unjust. I think that arguably what happened here was that God established the serious nature of the new church, as it is clear it had an impact on people. (It's worth noting that in verse three, Peter says Ananias has lied to the Holy Ghost, which is often used as evidence that the Holy Ghost is a person, and God.)

The next bit of the chapter has the Apostles performing miracles, which of course the SAB marks with "absurd" and "science" because it's always that way. Then the Apostles get thrown in prison, but an angel breaks them out. The SAB marks this as absurd as well, and admittedly it's funny, partly because they get busted out of prison without the guards even noticing somehow. The Sanhedrin brings the Apostles back for questioning. Should we obey human or divine law? The answer is both. Note that here in Acts, the Apostles haven't broken the law, they're just not letting the Sanhedrin boss them around. More in general, however, it's understood that Christians should follow the laws of the land they live in so long as they don't compel them to go against morality, which is probably a good guideline for anyone. Here in verse 30, the SAB points out that "Peter accuses the Jews of murdering Jesus." Yes, but in this case, he's addressing the Sanhedrin, so it's quite appropriate. Gamaliel, a prominent member who is later mentioned to be Saul of Tarsus's teacher, pulls the council aside and reminds them of a number of recent revolutionary movements that failed, suggesting that they should just leave the Jesus people alone to likewise fail, unless they turn out to be the right beliefs, in which they can't possibly stop them. They agree, but beat the Apostles up a little before letting them go. This just makes the Apostles happy because "they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name." Their preaching continues.

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.

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

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

Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost (Acts 2)

Acts chapter two is where we finally get to Pentecost and the baptism of the Holy Ghost. There's a lot of weird, supernatural, one-of-a-kind stuff going on in this chapter, so, yeah, it's going to be called absurd by the SAB. I already explained when the Holy Ghost was given in the last chapter.

The interesting thing about this event is that--as some have pointed out--the spiritual gift of "tongues" seems to be about speaking known languages, rather than glossolalia. The people who thought the disciples were drunk were probably speakers of Aramaic and Greek who couldn't figure out what was going on. If you don't know a foreign language and you hear it spoken, it's just nonsense to you.

Will those who call on the Lord be delivered? Yes and no. I think there's more of an element of earnestness here that simply saying a name. It's a contradiction if you take what Peter says at very simple face value, but I don't believe it's meant that way. I answered whether Jesus performed many signs and wonders in John chapter three, where the answer was yes. I answered who raised Jesus from the dead in John chapter two, where the answer was all persons of the Trinity were involved. Verse 31 has Peter mention Jesus being in Hell (the Greek word here is "Hades") and the SAB wonders why. I talked about Hell in John chapter five, but I didn't discuss this aspect in depth; the reason Jesus went to Hell was twofold: the sin of the world was put on him at his crucifixion, and he needed to go to Hell apparently to set free some (or maybe all?) of the people held captive there.

In whose name is baptism to be performed? I don't think it particularly matters, actually. Yes, Matthew reads differently, but the important thing is just that baptism happens for new believers in Jesus. Yes, 3,000 new Christians were baptized that day, which is a lot, but there were a lot of Jews in Jerusalem at that time because it was still the tail end of Passover, which lasts for seven days. And also yes, technically the early church, well through the 2nd century, practiced what was essentially a form of communism!

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.