Does the New Testament Misquote the Old Testament?
by Paul Copan
Perhaps you've wondered why New Testament (NT) writers appear to take Old Testament (OT) verses out of context to make them fit their theology about Jesus' teaching or ministry. Critics cry foul and charge that such "fabricated predictions" referred to something other than a coming Messiah. For example, the context of Hosea 11:1 ("Out of Egypt I called My son") referred to Israel's exodus from Egypt, but Matthew 2:15 says that the "Son" was Jesus coming from Egypt. Isaiah 7:14 ("the virgin will conceive, have a son") directly concerned King Ahaz's time, when a "sign child" would be born within Isaiah's lifetime (7:15-16; 8:4), but Matthew 1:22-23 says Mary was the virgin fulfilling the Isaiah passage. Rachel's weeping in Jeremiah 31:15 probably referred to mourning over Judah being taken into exile (Babylon) in 586 b.c., but Matthew 2:18 speaks of weeping mothers after Herod's capricious decree to kill all boys under two in Bethlehem (where Rachel was buried).
Frequently critics—and Christians too—think prophecy means "prediction" and fulfillment means "realization of a prediction"; from this, critics conclude "fabricated predictions." However, this charge rests on a great mistake, and sometimes Christians become confused by it.
First, if the NT writers "plundered" the OT for proof texts, why, for instance, didn't Luke—who mentioned the virgin birth—quote Isaiah 7:14 (as Matthew did)? The same could be asked about other such passages.
Second, Jewish interpretation of the OT during Jesus' day viewed "fulfillment" more broadly, as more varied and nuanced. The literal approach was only one method.
Third—and most importantly—the word "fulfill" (ple-roo-) in the NT is used to portray Jesus as bringing to full fruition OT events or experiences (the exodus, covenant), personages (Jonah, Solomon, David), and institutions (temple, priesthood, sacrifices, holy days). "Fulfill" doesn't necessarily (or even primarily) refer to the mere fulfillment of a prediction. Rather, a theological point is being made: many OT events and institutions—usually related to Israel—foreshadow something greater in Christ and the new community He called together (e.g., Christ's calling 12 disciples, reminiscent of Israel's 12 tribes). Jesus is the true, beloved Son that Israel failed to be (Hs 11:1; cp. Mt 2:15; Lk. 3:22), the shepherd Israel's leaders weren't (Ezk. 34; cp. Jn 10:1-18), and the genuine ("true") fruit-bearing vine Israel wasn't (Ps 80:8,14; Is 5:1-7; cp. Jn 15:1-11). In His ministry, Jesus reenacted the history and experiences of Israel—but on a higher plane (e.g., 40 days of testing in the wilderness, giving a new "law" from a mountain in Matthew 5–7, being in the "belly" of the earth for "three days and three nights"). He took over Israel's destiny and role, bringing it to fulfillment. The Law of Moses has a handful of messianic predictions, but Jesus' fulfilling the Law (Mt 5:17; Lk 24:44) refers to His bringing it to completion.
Of course, there are predictions regarding the Messiah's birthplace (Mc 5; cp. Mt 2:5), the Messiah's death and atonement (Is 53), and a coming prophet and messenger (Dt 18; Mal 3). But fulfillment of the OT generally refers to the broader idea of perfectly embodying, typifying, epitomizing, or reaching a climax. For example, Jesus (citing Is 29:13) said to unbelieving Jews of His day, "Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said: 'These people honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me' " (Mt 15:7-8, emphasis added). Of course, Isaiah didn't literally predict that Jesus would deal with hostile religious leaders; rather, Jesus was using the situation from Isaiah's time to epitomize, embody, and typify the same situation in His own day. This was typical of how Jews spoke of "fulfillment"—a this-is-that method called pesher: "This situation is a fulfillment or embodiment of that Scripture."
The NT writers weren't immoral or ignorant. They didn't illegitimately rip passages out of their context and deviously reduce them to messianic predictions. And they were well aware that OT writers (such as Hosea) were often commenting on events in Israel's past (such as the exodus in 11:1, "Out of Egypt I called My son") or events in their own day. But NT writers (and Jesus) interpreted the OT in a Christocentric manner: Jesus is the embodiment or completer of foreshadowed OT historical events, images, and personages. While fulfillment includes literal predictions of Christ and the new covenant, it goes far beyond to a richer theological embodiment of what the OT foreshadowed.
Does the Bible Contain Errors?
by Paul D. Feinberg
"Why do you believe the Bible? It is an ancient book full of errors and contradictions." We have all heard this many times. However, most conservative evangelical Christians disagree with this claim. They hold to a doctrine called the inerrancy of Scripture.
The place to start our discussion is with a definition of inerrancy and error. By inerrancy, we mean that when all the facts are known, the Bible—in its original manuscripts and properly interpreted—will be shown to be true and never false in all that it affirms, whether related to doctrine, ethics, or the social, physical, or life sciences. Three matters in this definition are noteworthy. First, there is the recognition that we do not possess all the information to demonstrate the truth of the Bible. Much data has been lost due to the passing of time. It simply no longer exists. Other data await archaeological excavation. Second, inerrancy is defined in terms of truth that most philosophers today take to be a property of sentences, not words. This means that all the indicative sentences, or statements, of the Bible are true. Therefore, on this definition, an error in the Bible would require that it made a false statement. Finally, all information in the Bible, whatever the subject, is true. That is, it accurately records events and conversations, including the lies of men and Satan. It teaches truly about God, the human condition, and heaven and hell.
The belief in inerrancy rests on at least four lines of argument: the biblical, the historical, the epistemological, and the slippery slope arguments.
The biblical argument is drawn from what the Bible has to say about itself and is the most important. This argument may be formulated in a circular and a noncircular way. It is circular when one claims that the Bible says it is inspired and inerrant and that this is true because it is found in an inspired and inerrant Scripture. It is not circular when claims are made that are verifiable outside the document. This is possible because the Bible makes historical and geographical statements that are verifiable independently. Inerrancy follows from what the Bible has to say about its inspiration. It is the exhaled breath of God (2 Tm 3:16) and is the result of the Holy Spirit's guidance of human authors (2 Pt 1:21). It is a divine-human book. Moreover, the accreditation of a prophet in the OT requires nothing less than complete truthfulness (Dt 13:1-5; 18:20-22). Can God's written communication meet any less a standard? It should be noted that both these oral and written forms of communication involve the human element. This shows that human agency does not necessarily imply the presence of error. The Bible teaches its own authority as well. Matthew 5:17-20 teaches that heaven and earth will pass away before the smallest detail of the law fails to be fulfilled. John 10:34-35 teaches that Scripture cannot be broken. Furthermore, the way Scripture uses Scripture supports its inerrancy. At times arguments in Scripture rest on a single word (Ps 82:6; Jn 10:34-35), the tense of a verb (Mt 22:32), or the number of a noun (Gl 3:16). Finally, the character of God stands behind His word, and He cannot lie (Nm 23:19; 1 Sm 15:29; Ti 1:2; Heb 6:18).
A second argument is historical. While there have been those who disagree, inerrancy has been the normative Christian view throughout history. Augustine writes, "I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error." Luther says, "Everyone, indeed, knows that at times they [the fathers] have erred as men will; therefore I am ready to trust them only when they prove their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred." John Wesley gave a similar opinion: "Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth."
A third argument is epistemological (based on what and how we know something). A helpful way to formulate this argument is to recognize that if the Bible is not entirely true, then any of it may be false. This is particularly problematic when some of the most important information communicated is not verifiable through independent facts. It teaches about an invisible God, angels, and heaven. Inerrancy requires that those claims of the Bible that are testable will be shown to be true once all relevant information is available. Critics of the Bible's full truthfulness point out numerous alleged errors. But in these cases, the passage in question may have been misinterpreted by the critic or not all relevant facts are brought to light. During the twentieth century, numerous claims of the Bible, thought to be in error, were shown to be true in the light of more information. If that is so, why should anyone believe what is unverifiable? Only an inerrant Bible assures us that what we read is true.
The fourth argument is the slippery slope (not a fallacy in this case). The argument states that inerrancy is so fundamental that those admitting errors into the Bible will soon surrender other central doctrines like the deity of Christ and/or the substitutionary atonement. The denial of inerrancy leads to greater doctrinal error. This does not happen in every case, but it is demonstrable as a trend.
Each of these arguments has been criticized. However, a common and fundamental objection to them contends this doctrine is meaningless since it is true only of nonexistent autographs (the original manuscripts). But is it meaningless? Not if two conditions are met: (1) we possess a sufficient number of high-quality copies of the autographs, and (2) there is a sophisticated discipline of textual criticism to use these copies in determining what the original must have said. Both of these conditions are met in the case of the Bible.
The fundamental issue is the Bible's teaching of its own inerrancy. And for those who are skeptical, evidence from science, archaeology, and history has supported this claim over and over again.
Who Are You to Judge Others?
by Paul Copan
Hands down, Matthew 7:1 is the most frequently quoted Bible verse today: "Do not judge, so that you won't be judged." It's been twisted to mean we can't say someone's action or lifestyle is wrong. However, when someone says, "Don't judge," he's judging you for judging someone else. You've done wrong by saying someone else has done wrong! Clearly, we can't escape making moral judgments. Furthermore, in the same context of the oft-quoted verse, Jesus made a moral judgment about certain persons, using metaphors about "dogs" and "pigs" (Mt 7:6), stressing that we shouldn't continue to present God's grace to those who persistently scoff and ridicule. At some point we must shake the dust off our feet and move on to the more receptive (Mt 10:14; Ac 13:51). On the other hand, Jesus commanded, "Stop judging according to outward appearances; rather judge according to righteous judgment" (Jn 7:24, emphasis added).
How do we resolve the apparent tension? By taking note of the spirit in which we make judgments. Do we think we're superior (the attitude Jesus condemned), or are we assessing actions or attitudes with a spirit of humility and concern, recognizing our own weaknesses (1 Co 10:13; Gl 6:1)? In Matthew 7:5, Jesus told us first to examine ourselves (removing the log from our own eye), then we can help our brother or sister (taking the speck out of his or her eye). So there is a problem to be dealt with—but only after self-examination. The wrong kind of judging is condemning. The right kind of judging is properly evaluating moral (or doctrinal) matters with a humble, helpful attitude. (In 1 Co 5:5, "judging"—even excommunicating—is required in light of a church member's shameless sexual misconduct.) We should treat others the way we would want to be treated (cp. Mt 7:12), thinking, There—but for the grace of God—go I.
So when discussing judging with others, first clarify what you mean by the word "judge." This can serve as the context for clarifying right and wrong kinds of judgment. Further, we must take care to avoid the "Who am I to say So-and-So is wrong?" mentality. We can't shrink from making moral judgments, nor can we escape them—lest we declare it wrong to say another is wrong.
Are Biblical Miracles Imitations of Pagan Myths?
by Gary R. Habermas
Frequently the complaint is made that biblical miracles, especially those of Jesus, were motivated or even inspired by pagan accounts from the ancient world. We are told that healings, demon possession, virgin births, and resurrections were all common fare in ancient times. So the implication is that the Bible is no different from other religious documents. Perhaps Christians even plagiarized other accounts.
While it is true that a myriad of miracle stories adorned the ancient world, it does not follow that Scripture duplicated them. Although promoted in some popular circles, this assumption is mistaken on several levels.
It is true that some scholars emphasize the similarities between pagan and biblical miracle accounts. But we must also accent the more common (and profound) differences. For example, there is usually an immense philosophical gulf between the pagan and biblical backgrounds for their respective miracle accounts. The pagan mindset most commonly incorporated cyclical, repetitive patterns in nature, marked by the seasonal cycles. In contrast, the Jewish philosophy of history moved in linear patterns, from one event to the next, culminating in God's grand climax.
Further, these pagan stories often concern persons who never even lived in history, such as Hercules of ancient Greek mythology, while Jesus and other biblical miracle workers undoubtedly did. Moreover, scholars note that these pagan stories were never influential in Palestine, where a far different outlook prevailed.
Surprisingly, virtually no miracle stories in the ancient world are even candidates for inspiring Jesus' miracles. Few of these tales both predate the NT and closely approximate Jesus' miracles. So it is difficult to prove a parallel.
Regarding Jesus' resurrection, the inadequacy of this proposed solution grows even more apparent. Writings clearly claiming that prominent pagan heroes were resurrected postdate the NT accounts. Scholars know that some ancient religious teachings copied from Christianity, and Jesus' resurrection may be an example of what was copied!
So there are many reasons why the NT accounts were not derived from pagan texts. The most crucial response, stated simply, is that we have many reasons for believing that Jesus actually performed miracles during His ministry. Indeed, virtually all contemporary critical scholars agree that Jesus performed many acts that might be termed "miracles" or "exorcisms."
Most of all, there is an incredible amount of evidence arguing that Jesus was really raised from the dead. For instance, we have reliable reports from various authors regarding many who thought that they had actually seen the risen Jesus. The most crucial witness is Paul, an eyewitness who provided very early testimony. So we must not miss the clear point that a number of early, credible witnesses (including previous skeptics Paul and James) were proclaiming their conviction that they had seen the risen Jesus, for which they were willing to die. Far from being inspired by faraway tales, many died for their honest belief that they had really seen the risen Jesus. Pagan stories do not explain this conviction.
How Should We Treat New Challenges to the Christian Faith?
by Gary R. Habermas
It seems every year during the Easter season the popular press boldly announces new claims troubling to Christians. Stories emerge, often as if breaking news, promising exciting new evidence contrary to the Bible in the form of scholarly research, archaeological discovery, or scientific breakthrough.
In recent years believers have been challenged with questions such as: Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene? Did Jesus father one or more children? Was Mary supposed to be the appointed leader of the church but was denied that right by the male leaders? Was Judas Iscariot not really the betrayer of Jesus, but Jesus' key disciple and hero? Were Jesus' bones really discovered in His family's burial tomb?
These tests to Christian faith arise in other formats, too. Novels, movies, chain e-mails, or casual talks with friends often present alleged reasons for believing the Bible wrong.
Perhaps the majority of Christians are not troubled, simply assuming that anti-biblical bias explains all such allegations. Others may react fearfully as if their faith were in danger of crumbling at any moment. But this reaction is almost never based on any thorough study of the claims themselves.
So how should Christians respond to ideas which, if they were true, might undermine our faith? Following are general suggestions we can utilize when evaluating disturbing challenges.
(1) Divorce our emotions from the challenge. We should immediately remind ourselves that the Bible has successfully withstood innumerable attacks over the centuries. Though many sensationalistic claims have been made against it, how many of them have ultimately proven the Bible wrong? That's right, none! So why spend painful emotional energy before the conflicting claims are sorted out? Typically these controversies are forgotten precisely because they are unable to withstand the scrutiny of scholarly examination.
Even if the claim initially appears substantial, there is still no reason to worry. Researchers have noted that this type of emotional response is linked not to the challenges but to the questions we ask ourselves at such moments: "Oh no, what if my faith is misplaced?" or "What if the Bible is wrong?" But though we rightly are passionate about God's Word, we should not succumb to troubling thoughts when others question its truth. Yes, a challenge has been proposed, so now we will study the specific claims being made.
(2) Assume the Bible is true. We should not adopt the critic's view that the Bible is guilty until proven innocent. Remembering how Scripture has withstood the test of time inspires us to develop our response with confidence and patience. Neither uncritical acceptance nor superficial rejection of an anti-biblical claim is worthy of those who know God does not lie. Presupposing the Bible's truthfulness enables the Christian to work toward an answer with persistence and the clarity of mind that stems from assurance.
(3) Carefully analyze each critical allegation against the Bible. Too many Christians attempt to counter critical views without having done their homework. Before we begin jousting with specific challenges, we need to understand the fundamental assumptions of the critic's worldview. Often just knowing the opponent's presuppositions helps us spot potential biases masquerading as scholarly research. Though we must still analyze the evidence, we need not accept pronouncements just because they are issued by an authority. If we know that Professor X discounts even the possibility of miracles, we may rightly assume that any relevant evidence for the miraculous did not factor into his reasoning.
A Christian respondent wisely focuses on those challenges which are stronger and more important. Questions on the periphery of the faith need not be treated with the same diligence as attacks on indispensable doctrines. Happily, our cardinal doctrines are also the best grounded, often established by multi-faceted evidence.
We should also understand and employ basic critical thinking skills. Some scholars exhibit an almost uncanny knack for dissecting opposing arguments and exposing their crucial weaknesses. This proficiency can be cultivated by asking certain essential questions. Is there an argument here based on evidence, or is someone simply making an assertion? If evidence is presented, how strongly does it actually support the critical claim? Are words being used for the purpose of explanation (cognitive meaning) or for persuasion (emotive meaning)? Are fallacies of reasoning employed (e.g., straw man: attacking something the Bible doesn't even say)?
(4) Get help from Christian scholars. The Lord has blessed the church with scholars devoted to working in the very disciplines so often employed to attack biblical Christianity. The works of outstanding evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers, scientists, and historians should be consulted. Often what the media presents as a daring new challenge to the Christian faith, we will find that experts have already thoroughly discredited.
(5) Be patient! Though we would like to have instant answers, they do not always come on our timetable. The wise Christian continues to assume the truthfulness of Scripture while awaiting solutions to problems. We happily confess we don't have all the answers (only God does!), even while we confidently await further substantiation of biblical veracity.
To sum up, controlling our emotions is a prerequisite for responding adequately to critical challenges. We also reject the notion that Christianity is guilty until proven innocent. Then, there are no substitutes for knowing not only our position but also the assumptions that may color the critic's allegations. We employ the basic tools involved in digesting and dissecting an argument. This provides the basis upon which we build our counter-challenge, aiming for the most crucial and vulnerable premises of our opponent's position. We thoughtfully utilize the labors of faithful Christian scholars. And we are patient when answers don't come quickly—because we know there are good answers.
Is the New Testament Trustworthy?
by Darrell L. Bock
Like any ancient book, the NT has a strange feel about it. It reports unusual events as well as strange customs. This naturally raises the question of whether we can trust what it tells us. These six statements of fact affirm that the NT can be trusted.
1. The books of the NT were recognized through a careful sifting process. The process stretched from the first to the fourth century. The catalysts for the formation of the NT were the use of Scripture in worship, the rise of false teaching (which necessitated identifying the authentic works), and persecution (which called for the burning of holy books—so one needed to know which those were!). The books included in the NT were those regarded as giving evidence of divine authority. Was it associated with an apostle? Was it in line with other authentic biblical books? Was it widely used and received? These were the questions used to identify the trustworthy and authoritative books of the NT.
2. The NT is based on reliable sources carefully used and faithfully transmitted. The Bible is both like other books and unlike them. Luke explained that he used sources (Lk 1:1-4). Jesus taught that the Spirit would help these apostles recall what Jesus taught them (Jn 14:25-26). To argue that the Bible is inspired by God does not dismiss the human elements that make up the book. What are the sources and how were they handled? The texts surrounding Jesus stress the role of eyewitnesses as the root of the tradition (see Lk 1:2). An apostolic association ensured the account's credibility.
The distance between event and recording is not great—less than a lifetime, a small distance of time by ancient standards. For example, the first-century Roman historians Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus were centuries removed from many of the events they chronicled. Judaism depended on the ability to pass things on with care from one generation to the next, recounting events with care. This does not exclude some variation, as is obvious by comparing the Gospel accounts or parallel accounts in 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles. Judaism, and the Christianity that grew out of it, was a culture of memory. People memorized long liturgical prayers and more often than not worked from memory rather than from a written page. Anyone who has read a children's book again and again to his child knows that the mind is capable of absorbing vast amounts of wording and retaining it.
Finally the biblical text we have today basically reflects the text as it was originally produced. The NT has far better manuscript evidence than any other ancient document. Where most classical works, such as those of Plato, Herodotus, and Aristophanes, have from one to 20 manuscripts, the NT has about 5,400 Greek manuscripts that we can compare to determine the original wording, not to mention more than 8,000 ancient Latin manuscripts.
3. Assessing trustworthiness means understanding history's complexity. Differences in accounts do not necessarily equal contradiction, nor does subsequent reflection mean a denial of history. Events can be viewed from different angles or perspectives without forfeiting historicity. Thus the differences in the four Gospels enrich our appreciation of Jesus by giving us four perspectives on Him—Jesus in four dimensions, so to speak. Neither is reflection a denial of history. Sometimes the significance of a historical event, such as a football play, becomes clear only when we see successive events. History involves both what happened and its results. Trustworthiness simply affirms that the assessed account is an accurate portrayal of what took place and a credible explanation of what emerged, not that it is the only way the events in question were seen.
4. Trustworthiness demands not exhaustive but adequate knowledge of the topic. Sources are selective even when they are accurate. The Bible makes this point in John 21:25: "There are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if they were written one by one, I suppose not even the world itself could contain the books that would be written." When people call Scripture trustworthy, they are arguing that its testimony is not contrary to what happened and is sufficient to give us a meaningful understanding of God and His work for us (2 Tm 3:16-17). Speaking accurately is not the same as speaking exhaustively.
5. Archaeology teaches us to respect the content of Scripture. Archaeology seldom can prove that events took place. What it can show is that the details of an account, some of them incidental, fit the time and culture of the text. Archaeology also shows that we should be cautious in pointing out errors in the Bible merely because only the Bible attests to something.
For example, there was once debate about the description in John 5:2 of a pool with five porticoes in Jerusalem, called Bethesda or Bethsaida. Many questioned its existence despite its wide attestation in ancient tradition. Different spellings of the locale in the NT manuscript tradition added to the tendency by many to reject the claim. In 1871 a French architect, C. Mauss, was restoring an old church and found a cistern 30 meters away. Later excavations in 1957–1962 clarified that it consisted of two pools large enough to hold a sizable amount of water and people. Today virtually no one doubts the existence of John's pool.
6. The Bible's claim for miracles are plausible when one considers the response to resurrection claims. The events of the Gospels were recorded within the lifetime of several of those who claimed to have observed them. Perhaps the greatest evidence for the resurrection is the change and reaction of those who testified to it. The disciples openly admitted that they had no formal training and for a long period were shockingly inept at responding to Jesus. Yet they become courageous leaders. They stood firm in the face of the threat of death and rejection by the Jewish leaders who resisted them. This did not involve one or two people but a whole host of leaders who left their mark on history, notably the former chief persecutor of the church, Paul. Both Peter and he, along with others such as the Lord's brother James, died for their belief in Jesus' resurrection.
The Trinity: Is It Possible That God Be Both One and Three?
by Douglas K. Blount
Like Jews and Muslims, Christians are monotheists. In other words, they believe in the existence of precisely one God. Unlike other monotheists, however, Christians also believe that, while there exists just one God, He is three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The belief that the one and only God exists eternally as three persons is known as the doctrine of the Trinity. And this doctrine plays an important role in Christian faith. In fact, the doctrine of the incarnation—which says that Jesus as God became a man and that He is thus both fully divine and fully human—assumes it. This latter doctrine lies at the heart of Christian faith.
On its face, however, the doctrine of the Trinity might look like a contradiction. It might seem impossible that God be both one and three. Indeed, the apparent absurdity of this doctrine has led to at least two major errors, each of which elevates one of the doctrine's claims at the other's expense. On one hand, some stress the oneness of God at the expense of His threeness, claiming there is only one divine person. Those who describe God in this way usually say that the one divine person appears in different guises or masks, sometimes as Father, other times as Son, and still other times as Spirit. Since this view says the one divine person changes His mode of appearance, it is called modalism. On the other hand, some stress God's threeness at the expense of His oneness, claiming each of the three divine persons is a distinct god. This view, which says that there are three gods, is called tritheism.
But modalism and tritheism are at odds with the Bible, which presents God as both one and three. There is just one God (Dt 6:4), yet this God is three persons—Father, Son, and Spirit (Mt 3:16-17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk 3:21-22). No doubt it is difficult (or perhaps even impossible) for us to understand how God is both one and three. But something's being difficult (or even impossible) for humans to understand doesn't make it a contradiction.
A contradiction involves saying that something is both true and false at the same time and in the same way. So, for instance, one who says both that Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo and that Napoleon did not lose the Battle of Waterloo contradicts himself. It is logically impossible for Napoleon to have both lost that battle and not to have lost it. His claim is contradictory.
Now if Christians said both that (1a) there exists precisely one God, and that (1b) it is not the case that there exists precisely one God, they would contradict themselves. So also if they said both that (2a) there are three divine persons, and that (2b) it is not the case that there are three divine persons, they also would contradict themselves. But Christians do not affirm both 1a and 1b. Neither do they affirm both 2a and 2b. Rather, they affirm 1a and 2a. And this would be contradictory only if either 1a entails 2b or 2a entails 1b.
To put the point differently, when Christians say that God is both one and three, they do not say that He is one in the same way in which He is three. So, for instance, they do not say both that (1a) there exists precisely one God, and that (1c) there exist three gods. Nor do they say both that (2a) there exist three divine persons, and that (2c) there exists only one divine person.
Since 1c entails 1b, affirming both it and 1a would be contradictory. And since 2c entails 2b, affirming both it and 2a also would be contradictory. But, as a matter of fact, Christians deny both 1c and 2c. In affirming 1a and 2a, then, Christians affirm that in one way God is one and in another way He is three. And in so doing they do not contradict themselves.
So, then, those who think the doctrine of the Trinity is contradictory misunderstand either the nature of a contradiction or the doctrine itself. Perhaps they confuse contradiction with mere paradox, taking our inability to understand how the doctrine is true to entail that it is false. But our inability to understand how God is both one and three tells us far more about ourselves than it does about God. The Bible presents God as both one and three; that suffices for us to know that He is so, regardless of whether we understand the how of it.