Description: Six objection sets alleging contradiction between: Jesus and Paul, Peter and the OT, Peter and the NT, Peter and Paul, Peter and Jesus, and Peter and Peter.

Jesus vs. Paul

1, 2)Matt. 10:5, etc.

3) Matt. 15:17-19, etc

4) Matt. 28:19, etc.

5) 1 Cor. 15:36

6) Matt. 27:46, etc

7) Luke 14:26, etc

8) Matt. 6:5-6

9)Matt. 28:18

10)Col. 2:3, etc.

11) Mark 3:29, etc

12)2 Cor. 11:5, etc

13) Trinity issues.

14) Heb. 6:18, etc

15) Matt. 19:21, etc

16-17) Here and here.

18) 1 Tim. 6:16, etc

In issue #44 of the EBE newsletter, James White pointed out to our subject that "immortality" and "eternal life" is NOT the same thing -- which our subject dismissed as "a distinction only theologians can visualize." [!] That's a sample of hayseed for you! Our subject also pulled a typical dodge by quoting verses which he says prove that "eternal life" can apply to Jesus, but that is not the issue at all, and even so, he verses he cites show Jesus to be the source of eternal life and have nothing to do with the nature of Christ or the derivation of immortality; he has merely thrown into the air any verse he has found with "Jesus Christ" and "eternal life" in them, and refer to believers and "immortality" in them, regardless of context or point.

Another point raised by White concerns the participle echon ("has" -- in the above verse, rendered "is") in 1 Tim. 6:16. White began by stating:

The continuous action, without relationship to time expressed by this participle is significant to the meaning of this passage.

In response our subject simply said that "one can only surmise" what the above has to do with resolving the perceived discrepancy -- which, although rightly indicating that White's explanation was not complete for those less trained in the Greek language, also exemplifies further our subject's hayseed approach to responses. White pointed out further in issue #46 that "Anyone familiar with the language would be able to follow what I said and would see that you are arguing from ignorance." In response our subject wrote this even "hayseedier" paragraph:

Although you are yet to make your point very clear, I assume you menat then, and are repeating now, that echon means Jesus had immortality throughout eternity while others merely obtained it at a point in time. Following your logic, echon in Mark 9:17 ("my son, which hath a dumb spirit") means his son had a dumb spirit throughout eternity and echon in John 10:20 ("He hath a devil, and is mad") means he has been mad throughout eternity.

This is followed upon by the usual complaint that the translations in English do not make the distinction clear, which is of course beside the point.

19) Matt. 11:30, etc

20) Titus 3:2, etc.

21)1 Cor. 6:9-10, etc

22) Matt. 15:11, etc

23) See here.

24) See here re the rich young ruler.

25, 26) See here.

27) Matt. 23:10, etc

28) Acts 20:35

29) See here.

30) Matt. 7:1, etc.

31, 32, 33) 2 Cor. 5:10, etc

34)Matt. 24:24 "There shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

vs.

Our subject writes, "Jesus clearly states that the ability to do signs and miracles was not to be used to prove someone represented God, but Paul preaches the opposite." (p. 433)

vs.

This essence of this objection was already handled in the chapter dealing with salvation and requires understaning of the Semitic Totality Concept. The Matt. 16:27 has nothing to do with salvation, but the rewards a Christian gets from the works done in the name of Christ. The Rom. 3:20 passage is talking about humans trying to obey the law which can't be done.

36) The old "three days" in the tomb" objection, answered by this:

This is actually an instance in which we need to understand Jewish idiom, which understood "a day and a night" to include even the smallest part of a day and night. A Jewish source from after the time of the New Testament puts it this way: "A day and a night are an Onah ['a portion of time'] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it" [J.Talmud, Shabbath 9.3 and b.Talmud, Pesahim 4a] Other examples of this kind of usage can be found throughout the Bible (Gen. 42:16, 1Kings 20:29, Esth. 4:16, Matt. 27:63). Jesus was in the tomb for only a small part of Friday and Sunday, but that counts according to Jewish idiom for the entire "day and night" for each of those days.

37) Heb. 13:14, etc

38) Matt. 6:25-28, etc

39) Matt. 5:34-35, etc

40) Repeat of objection-type elsewhere regarding alleged misquotes/nonquotes; see here.

Peter vs. The Old Testament

1) See here.

2) Eccl. 1:4, etc

3) Deut. 24;16, etc

4) See here .

vs.

Many commentators think Peter is really referring to Rome here as being symbolic of the Babylon of the Old Testament. Let's assume, though, that there is a church at Babylon. Big deal, all it means is that there is a church in the geographical area that today is in Iraq, but known then as Babylon. This does not mean that the Babylonian empire has come back from the Old Testament which is what the Old Testament verses are talking about. This is one of McKinsey's goofier objections.

6) Addressed in a variety of cites on this page.

7) See #34 on Paul above.

8) See Chapter 5 of my book, The Mormon Defenders.

(Our subject, here and in issue #47 of the newsletter, somehow manages to read "the angels who sinned" as referring to all angels, his rationalization being that since Satan sinned at one time, Peter must here be including Satan in the reference! The fact that Peter goes on to list three further incidents, in chronological order, from the OT, should indicate to any sensible reader that Peter is here referring to a recorded event that is chronologically prior to those he goes on to list -- but our subject is quite oblivious to the techniques of context-reading!)

9) See essay here for a more nuanced and scholarly understanding of typology.

10) Acts 3:21

11) See here for misuse of a cite from Proverbs.

Misquotations, Misinterpretations - same sort of material as this subject in Ch. 20 on Paul.

1) Objection regarding trial of Jesus; covered here.

vs.

Claimed to be contradictory as to what Jesus was hung on. Tree and cross are synonymous here. The Greek word, xylon was used for tree, wood, pole, and cross during antiquity; this is also found in rabbinic and other Jewish literature of the time.

vs.

The Apostles, and believers, could and can be filled with Holy Spirit again and again. One never loses the Holy Spirit, but the intensity varies. (The Greek word here, pletho, carries the implication of a fulness in the sense of accomplishment of completion: Hence

4, 5) See essay here for a more nuanced and scholarly understanding of typology.

1) This objection alleges adoptionism in the NT.

"How could the soul of a perfect being ever have been in hell?" (p. 441) Actually, the word translated "hell" here from the Greek should be translated "hades" or "netherworld". At the time of Christ both Old Testament Saints and unbelievers went to hades to await judgement. It is not the "hell" or gehenna of Revelation that unbelievers will eventually go to. Beyond this the verse only says that Jesus was not LEFT in hell, not that he went there.

1) See here.

2) See #34 above on Paul alone.

3) See here

4)Acts 15:7 "Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe,"

vs.

This is a unique McKinsey mistake. Galatians was written before the statement in Acts, so that this would be before Peter's "conversion" in his position. Thus, no problem. Otherwise, Paul is just giving us a general statement. Paul also went to the Jewish Synagogues when he entered the towns, so Jews were not neglected. Peter had been going just to the Jews, but he too started going to the Gentiles after his dealings with Cornelius.

Notice that Paul is talking about the "past" by using the word "had" which seems to imply he is recalling the way it was, not necessarily the way it was by the time he was writing.

1) See here.

2) See here.

3) See here.

4) Acts 2:38, etc

5) See here.

6) See #34 on Paul above.

7) See item on Trinity.

8)John 10:27-29, etc

9) See here.

10) See this essay.

1) 1 Peter 1:17, etc

2) See Chapter 5 of The Mormon Defenders.