I will be resolving all of the alleged “contradictions” from the web page entitled “194 CONTRADICTIONS, New Testament.” It’s perpetually striking to observe how many of these are obviously not logical contradictions, and how very easy they are to refute (many being patently and evidently absurd). A few here and there do seem to be genuinely perplexing (at first glance) and require at least some thought and study and serious examination (they save my patience). But all are ultimately able to be (in my humble opinion) decisively resolved. Readers can decide whether I succeed in my task or not, in any given case. My biblical citations are from RSV. The words from the web page above will be in blue.

See further installments:

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#1-25) [4-5-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#26-50) [4-6-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#51-75) [4-7-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#76-100) [4-8-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#101-125) [4-8-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#126-150) [4-9-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#151-175) [4-11-22]

*****

176) Paul teaches not to steal. Eph.4:28.
Paul admits to stealing. 2 Cor.11:8.

Commentaries on the second passage:

The intensity of St. Paul’s feelings, smarting under base calumny and ingratitude, reveals itself by the passionate expression which he here uses. . . . It is meant rather ironically than literally. (Pulpit Commentary)

Paul thus strongly expresses the fact that he had accepted from other churches more than their share, that he might not draw on the Corinthians. (Vincent’s Word Studies)

In other words, he was being sarcastic and non-literal. Of course, Paul wouldn’t rob anyone. Again, our skeptic is eager to disgustingly besmirch Paul and anyone else in the all-important effort to attack the Bible. He has failed miserably in his task.

177) Paul was assured that he would not be hurt. Acts 18:9,10.
Paul was often physically abused. 2 Cor.11:23-27.

The Acts passage is about how Paul wouldn’t be harmed in Corinth only. God told him: “no man shall attack you to harm you; for I have many people in this city” (18:9). Is our skeptic unable to properly understand English sentences? This is a ridiculously clueless supposed “contradiction”: beyond and below the usual rock-bottom quality of this collection.

178) Paul states that the law is necessary. Rom.3:31.
Paul states that the law is not necessary. Rom.6:14.

I dealt with these general questions of the law in #41 and #151-154. No need to repeat myself.

179) Jesus said to go and baptize. Mt.28:19.
Paul said he was not sent to baptize. 1 Cor.1:17.

Division of labor. Paul’s specialty was evangelism and dealing with hard-nosed unbelievers. He could assign others to baptize new converts. It’s not difficult to do. No biggie and no contradiction.

180) Paul said he was not sent to baptize but to preach. 1 Cor.1:17.
Paul baptized. 1 Cor.1:16.

Patience, patience; almost done! This is the flip side of #179. As Paul indicated in 1 Corinthians 1:16, he baptized one household, as an exception to his rule, and couldn’t remember baptizing anyone else.

181) Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law. Mt.5:17-19.
Paul said otherwise. Eph.2:15.

More questions about the law. See #41 and #151-154.

182) Jesus said that God did not condemn the world. Jn. 3:17.
Paul said that God did condemn the world. Rom.5:18.

Jesus did not talk in John 3:17. It was John or whoever wrote the Gospel bearing his name. Nor did he make this blanket statement. Rather, He said something more specific: “For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.” It was specifically about why He sent Jesus.

Paul sort of says this in Romans 5:18, but the leading thought is that the fall of man and our rebellion was our fault, not God’s, just as a convicted murderer’s wicked act is his fault, not that of the judge who sentences him.

In light of all this, no contradiction can be drawn from the above passages.

183) Those present at Paul’s conversion stood. Acts 9:7.
They fell to the ground. Acts 26:14.

Why couldn’t it be both things in sequence?: they initially fell to the ground, and then got up and stood there speechless. Perfectly possible . . . See also my reply to #184 below.

184) Those present at Paul’s conversion heard a voice but saw nothing. Acts 9:7.
Those present at Paul’s conversion saw a light but heard nothing. Acts 22:9.

Acts 9:3-7 Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. [4] And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” [5] And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; [6] but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” [7] The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

Acts 22:6-9 “As I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me. [7] And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ [8] And I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.’ [9] Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.”

Acts 26:14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.’

The Catholic Encyclopedia (“Acts of the Apostles”) disposed of this objection way back in 1907:

It is urged that the three accounts of the conversion of St. Paul . . . do not agree. . . . There are many solutions of this difficulty. . . . Pape and others give to the eistekeisan the sense of an emphatic einai, and thus it could be rendered: “The men that journeyed with him became speechless”, thus agreeing with 26:14. Moreover, the three accounts can be placed in agreement by supposing that the several accounts contemplate the event at different moments of its course. All saw a great light; all heard a sound from Heaven. They fell on their faces in fear; and then, arising, stood still and speechless, while Paul conversed with Jesus, whose articulate voice he alone heard. In Acts 9:7, the marginal reading of the Revised Edition of Oxford should be accepted: “hearing the sound”. The Greek is akoyontes tes phones. When the writer speaks of the articulate voice of Christ, which Paul alone heard, he employs the phrase outer phrase, ekousan phonen. Thus the same term, phone, by a different grammatical construction, may signify the inarticulate sound of the voice which all heard and the articulate voice which Paul alone heard.

185) Shortly after his conversion, Paul went to Damascus where he spent some time with the apostles. Acts 9:19.
Paul went to Damascus three years later and saw only Peter and James. Gal.1:18,19.

186) Shortly after his conversion, Paul went to Damascus and then to Jerusalem. Acts 9:18-26.
Shortly after his conversion, Paul went to Arabia, then to Damascus, and then, 3 years later, to Jerusalem. Gal.1:17,18.

This is clearly another instance of compression, or telescoping. Luke employs it in Acts 9, which is his narrative of Paul’s conversion and his meeting the apostles: just as he did in his Gospel, chapter 24, and Paul does not in Galatians 1. But in Acts 22:17, Paul himself uses the same technique of compression, during his trial.

He recounts his conversion, then (desiring to condense the story for whatever reason) skips right over the three years in Arabia at Acts 22:17 and starts talking about being in Jerusalem and the initial skepticism that he had converted, after persecuting Christians. Paul does it one place and not in another (which is perfectly fine). This is how ancient literature works. And no doubt there are analogous examples in our time as well. Steve Diseb explains the literary technique of compression:

Do this: Think about telling a story to a friend about something that happened to you that would take at least 5 minutes to tell. Now, imagine telling the same story if you only had 10 seconds. What details would you take out? How would you tell the story differently?

This idea helps us to understand what’s called telescoping (or compression) and why we see some variations in the same events written about by different Gospel writers. Simply, telescoping/compressing means telling a shortened version of an event with selective information.

Sometimes the Gospel writers (and other ancient writers) varied story length, shortening or lengthening the same episode like a telescope. Some of the writers give a fully extended version of the story, while other writers shortened their version, compressing it like a telescope. When compressing, the author may take “shortcuts” in telling the story by omitting information. (“The Joy & Angst of Four Gospels – Part 6 – Narrative Creativity: Telescoping & Compressing”, God From the Machine, 3-17-15)

187) In Damascus, the governor attempts to seize Paul. 2 Cor.11:32.
In Damascus, the Jews attempt to seize Paul. Acts 9:22,23.

Both did, in cahoots:

(1) . . . Damascus was under the immediate control, not of the Governor of Syria, but of a governor or an ethnarch; (2) . . . the ethnarch was appointed, not by the Roman emperor, but by Aretas (the name was hereditary, and was the Greek form of the Arabic Haret), the King of the Nabathæan Arabs, who had his capital at Petra, who was the father of the first wife of Herod Antipas . . .; (3) . . . the ethnarch lent himself to the enmity of the Jews, and stationed troops at each gate of the city to prevent St. Paul’s escape. (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)

188) The holy spirit forbids preaching in Asia. Acts 16:6.
Paul preaches in Asia anyway. Acts 19:8-10.

Norman Geisler answers this:

Paul was only forbidden immediately. God had a more strategic route for the Gospel through Europe first (Acts 16:9). Eventually, however, the Gospel got to Asia and to every place through Paul’s converts in Europe (cf. 1 Thes. 1:7) and by Paul himself (Acts 19:10, 22, 26; 20:4, 16, 18; 1 Cor. 16:19). So, the prohibition was only temporary, not permanent. (“Acts 16:16 — Why Did the Holy Spirit Forbid Paul to Preach in Asia . . .?”, Defending Inerrancy, 2014, from a 1992 book)

189) Paul said he would not be a servant of Christ if he tried to please men. Gal.1:10.
Paul said that he tried to please men. 1 Cor.10:33.

It denotes what takes place on the apostle’s side through his endeavour, namely, to be the servant of all, and to be all things to all men (1 Corinthians 9:19 ff.); not the result of his endeavour, as if he actually did please all (see on Galatians 1:10); . . . (Meyer’s NT Commentary)

Paul’s universal compliance is qualified by its purpose, ἵνα σωθῶσιν, in the light of which the verbal contradiction with Galatians 1:10, 1 Thessalonians 2:4, is removed; there is nothing in his power that P. will not do for any man, to help his salvation (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:22 b). (Expositor’s Greek Testament)

190) Paul says that he was the chief of all sinners. 1 Tim.1:15.
He who commits sin is of the devil. Children of God cannot sin. 1 Jn.3:8-10.

Rehash of #155 in the previous installment. I John habitually uses proverbial language, meaning that that it utilizes statements of general truths that nevertheless sometimes admit of exceptions. I explained this about 1 John in greater detail in my reply to #29 in my second installment.

191) Paul said that Jesus is the judge. 2 Tim.4:1.
Paul said that God is the judge. Heb.12:23.
Paul said that the saints would judge. 1 Cor.6:2.

Rehash of #166 from the previous installment.

192) Paul said that Jesus was the Son of God. Rom.1:3,4.
Paul said that Jesus was just a man. Heb.7:24.

Rehash of #171 from the previous installment. I guess that’s why this list is near its end: if the writer can only repeat himself.,

193) Do not boast. Lk.18:14.
Do not be proud. Rom.11:20; 1 Pet. 5:5.
Paul proudly boasts. 2 Cor.11:16-18; Gal.2:9-11.

So-called “super-apostles” had found their way to Corinth. These parasitic charlatans had followed in the wake of the Lord’s servant and were siphoning off glory from God and discrediting Paul in order to inflate the appearance of their self-importance.

If it had only been about his reputation, Paul wouldn’t have wasted his ink. But these men were not only maligning Paul, they were distorting the gospel. They were maligning Paul in order to distort the gospel. The situation demanded that Paul call these imposters out and contrast their doctrine, character and labors with his own. But it was tortuous for him: “I am talking like a madman” (2 Corinthians 11:23).

Reluctantly Paul cataloged revelations he had received, suffering he had endured for the gospel and the church, and how he had never financially benefitted from the Corinthians. (“Paul: I Am Content with Weakness”, Jon Bloom, Desiring God, 8-1-10)

We recognize in the English language that boasting, like pride can have different meanings. We’re “proud” of our children; we “boast” about our wife becoming a manager of a business, etc. That’s how Greek is, too. Paul was being semi-sarcastic, but with a very serious point underneath, as always.

194) Jesus commends the church at Ephesus for discerning the lying apostles. Rev. 2:1,2.
Paul was the apostle to Ephesus. Eph.1:1.

Paul was a genuine apostle. Many call themselves by that title, but are false apostles. That’s all the refutation this ultra-silly “objection” requires. 0 for 194 . . . E for effort, and an E- for content.

***

It so happens that there is another complete answering of this same list, from the Unam Sanctam Catholicam web page [part one / part two / part three]. I found out about it early on but decided not to draw any of my answers from it. This means we have two comprehensive replies from orthodox Catholics. I totally agree with that series’ conclusion as to what is required to refute these charges: “some knowledge of Christian theology, an unbiased application of linguistics, and pure common sense.”

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: mohamed hassan (2-22-21) [public domain / Pxhere.com]

***

Summary: A Bible skeptic has come up with 194 alleged biblical “contradictions” (usually recycled from old lists). I am systematically going through the list and refuting each one.

I will be resolving all of the alleged “contradictions” from the web page entitled “194 CONTRADICTIONS, New Testament.” It’s perpetually striking to observe how many of these are obviously not logical contradictions, and how very easy they are to refute (many being patently and evidently absurd). A few here and there do seem to be genuinely perplexing (at first glance) and require at least some thought and study and serious examination (they save my patience). But all are ultimately able to be (in my humble opinion) decisively resolved. Readers can decide whether I succeed in my task or not, in any given case. My biblical citations are from RSV. The words from the web page above will be in blue.

See further installments:

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#1-25) [4-5-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#26-50) [4-6-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#51-75) [4-7-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#76-100) [4-8-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#101-125) [4-8-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#126-150) [4-9-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#176-194) [4-11-22]

*****

151) All who have sinned without the law will perish without the law. Rom.2:12.
Where there is no law there is no sin or transgression. Rom.4:15.

Taking the second first, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible stated:

This is a general principle; a maxim of common justice and of common sense. Law is a rule of conduct. If no such rule is given and known, there can be no crime. Law expresses what may be done, and what may not be done. If there is no command to pursue a certain course, no injunction to forbid certain conduct, actions will be innocent. The connection in which this declaration is made here, seems to imply that as the Jews had a multitude of clear laws, and as the Gentiles had the laws of nature, there could be no hope of escape from the charge of their violation.

Romans 2:12 is addressing something different: our consciences and consciousness of right and wrong regardless of whether laws exist or not. It has to be understood in the context of the next four verses:

Romans 2:13-16 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Since it is two distinct, separate concepts addressed in the two passages, they aren’t contradictory. Paul’s teaching is completely self-consistent. His teaching — especially regarding the relationship of law and grace –, is extremely complex and subtle and sophisticated. It takes years to properly understand. With the persistent manifest ignorance of even the simplest principles of biblical theology (not to mention the laws of logic) that the skeptic has exhibited again and again, there is little or no chance that he or she could grasp the fine points of Paul’s theology:

1 Corinthians 2:14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

But I have provided a broad reply regarding these two passages, for the sake of others more open-minded and familiar with New Testament soteriology, and to overcome yet another bogus pseudo-“contradiction.”

152) Doers of the law will be justified. Rom.2:13.
Doers of the law will not be justified. Rom.3:20; Gal.3:11.

Romans 2:13 is talking about good works in a general sense, which are certainly necessary for salvation in the overall equation (being the proof of authentic faith), though always ultimately enabled by God’s grace.  Romans 3:20 and Galatians 3:11 (see the context of 3:10) are both talking about “works of the law”: which has a distinct meaning of its own. My friend and radio talk show host and author Al Kresta explained this in a section of my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003):

Paul’s arguments against works of the law are not fundamentally arguments against human participation in or human cooperation with the saving purposes of God, but arguments against Judaistic pride that sought to define membership in the covenant community by reference to Jewish marks of identity, such as circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, etc. and not fundamentally faith in Jesus as Messiah. (p. 42)

This outlook is known as “The new perspective on Paul.” It was “new” for the Protestants who developed this understanding in the 1970s (Anglican Bishop N. T. Wright being prominent among them); not so much for Catholics and Orthodox Christians. The Wikipedia article on it explains further:

Paul’s letters contain a substantial amount of criticism regarding the “works of the Law“. The radical difference in these two interpretations of what Paul meant by “works of the Law” is the most consistent distinguishing feature between the two perspectives. The historic Protestant perspectives interpret this phrase as referring to human effort to do good works in order to meet God’s standards (Works Righteousness). In this view, Paul is arguing against the idea that humans can merit salvation from God by their good works alone (note that the “new” perspective agrees that we cannot merit salvation; the issue is what exactly Paul is addressing).

By contrast, new-perspective scholars see Paul as talking about “badges of covenant membership” or criticizing Gentile believers who had begun to rely on the Torah to reckon Jewish kinship. It is argued that in Paul’s time, Israelites were being faced with a choice of whether to continue to follow their ancestral customs, the Torah, or to follow the Roman Empire’s trend to adopt Greek customs (Hellenization, see also Antinomianism, Hellenistic Judaism, and Circumcision controversy in early Christianity). The new-perspective view is that Paul’s writings discuss the comparative merits of following ancient Israelite or ancient Greek customs. Paul is interpreted as being critical of a common Jewish view that following traditional Israelite customs makes a person better off before God, pointing out that Abraham was righteous before the Torah was given. Paul identifies customs he is concerned about as circumcision, dietary laws, and observance of special days.

Again, these are very deep theological waters, debated among equally sincere and theologically educated Christians. The skeptic almost certainly won’t grasp these fine distinctions, but I trust that Christian readers will, or else will be motivated to study the issue more in-depth. In any event, this understanding easily overcomes the supposed “contradiction.”

153) The law has dominion. Rom.7:1.
The law does not have dominion. Rom.6:14.

154) The law was the result of sin. Gal.3:19.
Sin is the result of breaking the law. 1 Jn.3:4.

These both have to do with the deep waters of Paul’s teaching on law and grace. Rather than delve into it again like I did in #151 and #152, I’ll simply link to a good, relevant, in-depth treatment of what is brought up here: whether Christians are still under “the law” or not. See: “The Law of God” (Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers, 1 October 2000).

155) Those of “God” cannot sin. 1 Jn.3:9.
Those of “God” can sin. 1 Jn.1:7 8.

I John habitually uses proverbial language, meaning that that it utilizes statements of general truths that nevertheless sometimes admit of exceptions. I explained this about 1 John in greater detail in my reply to #29 in my second installment.

156) The anointing of Jesus teaches right from wrong. 1 Jn.2:27.
The law written on the heart and conscience teaches right from wrong. Rom.2:15.

Both do. They complement each other. It’s self-evident to say that we can learn the same thing from more than one source.

157) Abraham was justified by faith. Heb.11:8.
Abraham was justified by works. Jms.2:21.
Abraham was not justified by works. Rom.4:2.

See my paper, Justification: Not by Faith Alone, & Ongoing (Romans 4, James 2, and Abraham’s Multiple Justifications) [10-15-11].

158) It is not good to eat or drink anything that might cause your brother to stumble or be offended. Rom.14:21.
Let no one pass judgment on you in matters of food or drink. Col.2:16.

Both things are true, in opposite ways. In the first, we should try not to offend others by what we eat or drink. It’s true that they are probably weak in their understanding, but charity understands that and still is considerate of their state. The second is talking about folks judging us for what we eat. Since the New Testament teaches that all foods are now “clean” they have no basis to do so. Apples and oranges . . .

159) It is better that widows should not remarry. 1 Cor.7:8.
It is better that young widows should remarry. 1 Tim.5:11-14.

Both passages in context say that it is well and good for widows to remarry:

1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

1 Timothy 5:14 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, rule their households, and give the enemy no occasion to revile us.

Both of these are consistent. Widows can remarry; young widows are a sub-group of these widows (who can remarry). So far so good. The supposed “contradiction” comes from 1 Corinthians 7:8: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.” To say that singleness is a preferable state to being married is not to forbid marriage or say that it is a bad thing. In the larger section, Paul teaches that singleness is better in the following sense:

1 Corinthians 7:28 But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.

1 Corinthians 7:32-35 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;[33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, [34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. [35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

Paul is also very pro-marriage:

1 Corinthians 7:2 But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

Bottom line: Paul in this chapter teaches that everyone should live as God has called them to live:

1 Corinthians 7:7 I wish that all were as I myself am [i.e., unmarried]. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

1 Corinthians 7:17 Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.

1 Corinthians 7:24 So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God.

That could be either single or married. No contradictions at all, once Paul’s teaching is fully understood.

160) The god of this world blinds people to the gospel. 2 Cor.4:4.
There is only one god. 1 Cor.8:4.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible comments on the first passage:

In John 12:31, he is called “the prince of this world.” In Ephesians 2:2, he is called “the prince of the power of the air.” And in Ephesians 6:12, the same bad influence is referred to under the names of “principalities, and powers,” “the rulers of the darkness of this world,” and “spiritual wickedness in high places.” The name “god” is here given to him, not because he has any divine attributes, but because he actually has the homage of the people of this world as their god, as the being who is really worshipped, or who has the affections of their hearts in the same way as it is given to idols. By “this world” is meant the wicked world; or the mass of people. He has dominion over the world. They obey his will; they execute his plans; they further his purposes, and they are his obedient subjects. He has subdued the world to himself, and was really adored in the place of the true God; . . .

In other words, it’s a metaphorical, sarcastic attribution of the word “god” to the devil. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that there are no other Gods (or gods) besides the one true God:

Deuteronomy 32:17, 21 They sacrificed to demons which were no gods, . . . They have stirred me to jealousy with what is no god; they have provoked me with their idols. . . .

Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

2 Chronicles 13:9 . . . Whoever comes to consecrate himself with a young bull or seven rams becomes a priest of what are no gods.

Jeremiah 2:11  Has a nation changed its gods, even though they are no gods? . . .

Jeremiah 5:7 . . . Your children have forsaken me, and have sworn by those who are no gods. . . . (cf. 10:14)

Jeremiah 16:20 Can man make for himself gods? Such are no gods! (cf. 51:17)

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” [5] For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” — [6] yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Galatians 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods;

161) The powers of this world are wicked, so fight against them. Eph.6:11-13.
All powers are ordained of God and, if you resist, you are damned. Rom.13:1,2.

Variation of #148-149: answered last time.

162) Bear one another’s burdens. Gal.6:2.
Bear your own burdens. Gal.6:5.

RSV has “burdens” for 6:2 and “load” for 6:5; and it does because it is two different Greek words. Eric Lyons of Apologetics Press explains:

In verse 2, “burdens” is translated from baros, meaning “weight,” or figuratively, an “experience of someth[ing] that is particularly oppressive” [Danker, Frederick William, William Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, (2000), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), p. 167]. In verse 5, “burden” is from fortion, meaning “that which constitutes a load for transport,” or “that which is carried and constitutes a burden” (Danker, p. 1064, emp. added).

We see, then, that the meaning of the two taken together, is “bear particularly oppressive burdens of others, and your own ordinary load.” Lyons continues:

Galatians 6:2 and 6:5 do not represent an either/or command. If it is possible for the Christian both to (1) bear his own burden/load, while at the same time (2) help bear another’s burden, then both commands must be followed, without assuming that one command must be obeyed to the exclusion of the other. . . . Are we to work to take care of our families and ourselves? Yes. Are we to help others who are genuinely in need (i.e., who have burdens that they are unable to bear alone)? Yes. (“Bear One Another’s Burdens, or Just Bear Your Own?”, 22 March 2015)

163) Anyone who even greets a non-believer shares his wicked work. 2 Jn.10,11.
Always be ready to answer any man concerning your faith. 1 Pet.3:15.

1 Peter 3:15 is one of the classic biblical rationales for apologetics. We are to be ready to explain and make a “defense” (Greek, apologia) to anyone who “calls” us “to account” for the hope that is in us, and the Christian faith. I’m doing that very thing right now by showing how these objections to the Bible fail.

Norman Geisler gives an excellent explanation of the meaning of 2 John 10-11:

The passage in 2 John is not talking about someone who simply comes to visit. Rather, John is talking about false teachers who are deceivers (v. 7) and who come to present their doctrines.

First, John is instructing the local church, and the individuals of the local church, not to extend hospitality to these persons, because that would imply that the church accepted or approved of their teaching. The people of the local church were directed not even to give a Christian greeting to them, lest this be misconstrued as an attitude of tolerance of their false doctrines. This was by no means a command not to love one’s enemy. In fact, following John’s directives would be the supreme act of love for one’s enemy. By clearly demonstrating an intolerance for false doctrine, it would be possible to communicate to false teachers that they needed to repent. On the contrary, if the church or individual were to extend hospitality to a false teacher, he would be encouraged in his position and take this action as an acceptance of his doctrine, or as a covering of his unrighteousness.

Second, it must be remembered that, in the early church, the evangelistic and pastoral ministry of the church was conducted primarily by individuals who traveled from location to location. These itinerant pastors depended on the hospitality of the people of a local congregation. John is directing the church not to extend this kind of hospitality to teachers of false doctrine. This is not contradictory to Jesus’ teaching. We are to love our enemies, but not encourage them in their evil deeds. We are to do good to them that hate us, but not to condone their wickedness. As Jesus said, we are to show ourselves to be children of our Father. In the very same Sermon on the Mount, Jesus went on to warn His disciples to beware of false prophets “who come … in sheep’s clothing” (Matt. 7:15). John gave practical application to this warning, and thereby encouraged the local church to maintain its purity and devotion to Christ. (“2 John 10 — Why Does This Verse Tell Us Not to receive Certain People When Jesus Told Us to Love Our Enemies?”, Defending Inerrancy, 2014, from a 1992 book)

164) All of the grass on the earth is burned up. Rev.8:7.
The army of locusts are instructed not to harm the grass. Rev.9:4.

Perennial grass varieties have the ability to withstand fire’s damaging effects. The top growth of the grass will suffer damage or death, but the growing points of the plant reach deep below the soil. Fire usually impacts only the top 25 percent of the soil, according to the University of Nebraska. The well-established roots of the perennial grass remain untouched by the fire’s intensity. The grass quickly grows back after a fire and often produces more abundant growth. (“Will Grass Grow Back That Has Been Burned?”, Kimberly Sharpe, Hunker)

The lush, green lawn that you see outside your window every spring is largely composed of perennial grass. (“The Difference Between Annual and Perennial Grass”, Lisa Dingman, Hunker, 3-6-22)

There is an undisclosed timespan between the two verses. It’s entirely possible and plausible that the burnt grass simply grew back: Based on the horticultural information above.

165) Only “The Father” knows. Mk.13:32.
“Jesus” and “The Father” are one. Jn.10:30; 17:11,21,22.

Cornelius a Lapide (1567-1637), the great Jesuit exegete, explains this:

[T]he Son, both as God and as man, by infused knowledge, knows the Day of Judgment and of the end of the world, for it pertains for Him to know this, inasmuch as He has been appointed the Judge of the world. But Christ denies that He knoweth this as man, and as He is God’s messenger to us, because He did not know it so that He could reveal it to us, or because He had not been commissioned by the Father to reveal it to us. As an ambassador who was questioned concerning the secrets of his prince would reply that he did not know them, although he did know them, because he did not know them as an ambassador. For an ambassador declares only those things which he has a commission to declare.

Christ’s meaning then is, “God only knows what year and day and hour the end of the world and the Judgment shall be. And although God has caused Me, Christ, as I am man, to know the same, as I am that one man who is united to the Word; yet as I am the Father’s ambassador to men, He has not willed Me to make known that day, but to keep it secret, and to stir them up continually to prepare themselves for it.”

166) Jesus said that he would judge. Jn.5:22,27-30; Jn.9:39.
Jesus said that he would not judge. Jn.8:15; Jn.12:47.
Jesus said that The Father judges. Jn.12:48,49.
Jesus said that The Father does not judge. Jn.5:22.
Jesus said that his disciples would judge. Lk.22:30.

Here’s another passage about judgment:

John 3:17-19 For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. [18] He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. [19] And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

The article, “Does Jesus Judge People?” (Contradicting Bible Contradictions, 8-29-13) comments on this passage: “The overlooked principle is: Jesus doesn’t need to judge. Whoever does not believe, is judging himself.” It continues its analysis of the issue:

The first coming

The first coming of Jesus had a very special purpose as we read in verse 17: to save the world and not to judge the world. Remarkably this is not against God’s general divine judgement concerning all evil. Jesus being the Light was always more in his spiritual and moral standards. He didn’t need to say what people did wrong; in his appearance people experienced that He was more, His divine light entered into the innermost recesses of the heart.

References of the critic that Jesus don’t judge are related to the first coming:

You judge according to the flesh; I am not judging anyone. John 8:15
If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. John 12:47

The second coming

In Matthew 25:31-32 Jesus states: “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before Him; …”  In the second coming Jesus will take place on his glorious throne to judge. And so it is said about Him: “… this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.” (Acts 10:42)

References of the critic that Jesus will judge are related to the second coming:

For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, … John 5:22
… and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. John 5:27
And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, … John 9:39 . . .

Conclusion

The critic failed to see that there are two different moments/situations concerning the question of Jesus’ judgement. The texts that He will not judge are related to the first coming and the texts about his judgement are related to his second coming.

As to portions not addressed in the above article:

Luke 22:30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

This is a specific judgment (related to the twelve tribes) rather than universal, and so is a separate subject matter (therefore not contradictory).

In John 12:48 the judge isn’t the Father but Jesus’ own words: “He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.” This is consistent with Jesus being the judge on the Last Day, having been assigned that role by the Father, as this objection notes (John 5:22).

167) He that does not believe is damned. Mk.16:16.
Thomas did not believe and was not damned. Jn.20:27-29.

Mark 16:16 in context is belief in the Gospel and the saving redemption of Jesus Christ. But John 20 was about whether Thomas believed the risen Christ was really Him or not. That’s a separate issue altogether, and in any event, Thomas believed as soon as He felt Jesus’ wounds, and exclaimed: “My Lord and my God!”: one of the most explicit indications in the NT that Jesus was God (since He accepted this address without rebuke).

168) “When his branch is yet tender”. Mt.24:32.
“When her branch is yet tender”. Mk.13:28.

Really? Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel . . . This is about the fig tree. My RSV has “its” for the “his” and “her” above in an undisclosed translation. “His” is used for Matthew 24:32 in only 6 out of 61 translations (KJV being one). But “so what?” in the first place. It’s simply use of personification. We call ships and countries “she” and “her” sometimes, and currently we call hurricanes by both male and female names.

Jesus did the same; that is, if this is not from older, outdated manuscripts (as it appears to be), so arguably, the “him” and “her” are not even in the original copies and hence not in the Bible. Either way (legitimate manuscript or no), there is no difficulty here, because poetic, non-literal expression is common in all languages.

169) Jesus is God. Jn.10:30.
Jesus is the “image” of God. 2 Cor.4:4.
Jesus was a man approved by God. Acts 2:22.

170) Jesus and God are one in the same. Jn.1:1.
Jesus is beside himself. Mk.16:19; Acts 2:32,33; 7:55; Rom.8:34; etc.

“God” in the second and third examples of #169 and the second line of #170 means “God the Father” as often happens in Scripture: usually understood by context. Jesus, because He was a man, is the “image” of the invisible Father, Who has no body. And Jesus is a man, whereas the Father is not. It’s all standard trinitarian biblical theology.

171) Jesus is the Son of God. Jn.6:69; Jn.20:31.
Jesus is the Son of Man. Mt.18:11; Lk.21:27.

Two titles: both true. The first emphasizes His Divine Nature and the second His incarnation and Messiahship (the phrase comes from a famous messianic OT passage: Daniel 7).

172) Paul states that he does not lie. Rom.9:1; 2 Cor.11:31; Gal.1:20; 1 Tim.2:7.
Paul states that he does lie. Rom.3:7.

This ridiculous and desperate “problem” was dealt with here: Pearce’s Potshots #16: Does St. Paul Justify Lying? [2-12-21].

173) Paul said that he does not use trickery. 1 Thes.2:3.
Paul admits to using trickery. 2 Cor.12:16.

Paul does no such thing in 2 Corinthians, and here we go again with sloppy and indefensible “exegesis” [choke]. He was falsely accused of same by the Corinthians (“I was crafty, you say, and got the better of you by guile”). He defends himself from the false charge in the next three verses. Expositor’s Greek Testament discusses this false accusation:

[H]is adversaries hinted that, although he did not accept maintenance directly, yet the collection made for the Judæan Christians was under his hand, and that he was not above suspicion in his disposal of it. To this he returns an indignant denial, and appeals directly to their own observation of the messengers whom he had sent, of whom Titus (at least) had met him in Macedonia with a report (2 Corinthians 7:6) and was sent back to Corinth with two companions to complete the business, carrying this letter (2 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 8:18 ff.).

My patience with this nonsense and folly hangs by a thread. But only 21 to go, so I’ll survive and live to tell the tale. Enduring these “objections” is surely a proof of God’s grace and strength during trials (the trial being an enduring of patience and not any particular difficulty refuting any of these).

174) Paul says that circumcision is nothing. 1 Cor.7:19.
Paul says that circumcision is profitable. Rom.2:25; Rom.3:1,2.

In Romans 2:25 he qualifies his statement by saying “if you obey the law” so he’s simply saying, “those who keep the law get circumcised as part of that law.” 3:1-2 is a variation of that: referring to Jews and Judaism, and the requirement of circumcision. Thus, “apples and oranges” and no contradiction.

175) Do not covet. Rom.7:7; Rom.13:9.
Paul says covet. 1 Cor.12:31; 1 Cor.14:39.

Clearly, different senses of the word “covet” are in play here. The Romans passages reiterate one of the Ten Commandments, where “covet” means “sinful desire for” or “jealousy”, “envy” etc. The Greek word used in both is epithumeó (Strong’s Greek word #1937). It’s used mostly in this negative sense, but not always. For these two verses, Thayer’s Greek Lexicon gives the meaning of “to lust after, covet, of those who seek things forbidden.”

1 Corinthians 12:31, on the other hand,  in RSV reads “earnestly desire.” The antiquated language of “covet” in the verse appears in only 6 out of 61 English translations. The Greek word in both passages in 1 Corinthians (also 14:1 in the same sense) is zéloó (Strong’s Greek word #2206). It can be used in both senses: in a bad sense (envy, jealousy): see Acts 7:9; 17:5; 1 Cor 13:4) and a good one, as in these two passages, alongside 1 Corinthians 14:1): defined by Thayer’s Greek Lexicon for these verses as “to desire earnestly, pursue.”

The usage of the word “covert” is exactly the same in English. It has a “bad behavior” definition and a “good / neutral” one. Hence, Dictionary.com for “Covet”:

verb (used with object)

Merriam-Webster offers a similar dual definition as well, but reverses the order, with the “good one” first (which probably suggests that the “good” usage is a bit more common today).

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: mohamed hassan (2-22-21) [public domain / Pxhere.com]

***

Summary: A Bible skeptic has come up with 194 alleged biblical “contradictions” (usually recycled from old lists). I am systematically going through the list and refuting each one.

I will be resolving all of the alleged “contradictions” from the web page entitled “194 CONTRADICTIONS, New Testament.” It’s perpetually striking to observe how many of these are obviously not logical contradictions, and how very easy they are to refute (many being patently and evidently absurd). A few here and there do seem to be genuinely perplexing (at first glance) and require at least some thought and study and serious examination (they save my patience). But all are ultimately able to be (in my humble opinion) decisively resolved. Readers can decide whether I succeed in my task or not, in any given case. My biblical citations are from RSV. The words from the web page above will be in blue.

See further installments:

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#1-25) [4-5-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#26-50) [4-6-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#51-75) [4-7-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#76-100) [4-8-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#101-125) [4-8-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#151-175) [4-11-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#176-194) [4-11-22]

*****

126) At the time of the ascension, there were about 120 brethren. Acts 1:15.
At the time of the ascension, there were about 500 brethren. 1 Cor.15:6.

Acts doesn’t say that is the entire number of Christians in the world; only the amount in that place, who were living together. It’s sheer speculation to assert otherwise. Jesus appeared for forty days after He rose again (Acts 1:3), and so 500 Christians could have easily existed by the end of that period, seeing how wildly enthusiastic the early Christians were to spread the Good News of His resurrection. 500 doesn’t contradict 120, as long as the latter is not stated to be the sum total of all Christians. Paul doesn’t say 500 is the total, either, but we know there were at least that many before the Ascension took place.

127) The moneychangers incident occurred at the end of Jesus’ career. Mt.21:11,12.
The moneychangers incident occurred at the beginning of Jesus’ career. Jn.2:11-15.

Eric Lyons of Apologetics Press answers this:

There were two temple cleansings.

Why not? Who is to say that Jesus could not have cleansed the temple of money-hungry, hypocritical Jews on two separate occasions—once earlier in His ministry, and again near the end of His life as He entered Jerusalem for the last time? Are we so naïve as to think that the temple could not have been corrupted at two different times during the three years of Jesus’ ministry? Jesus likely visited the temple several times during the last few years of His life on Earth (especially when celebrating the Passover—cf. John 2:13,23; 6:4; 11:55), likely finding inappropriate things going on there more than once. . . .

[T]he different details recorded by John likely are due to the fact that we are dealing with two different temple cleansings. Only John mentioned (1) the oxen and sheep, (2) the whip of cords, (3) the scattering of the money, (4) Jesus’ command, “Take these things away,” and (5) the disciples’ remembrance of Psalm 69:9: “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up” (2:17). Furthermore, John did not include Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah 56:7 [“my house shall be called a house of prayer”], which is found in all three of the other accounts, and stands as a prominent part of their accounts of the temple cleansing. (“Chronology and the Cleansing of the Temple”, 26 May 2004)

128) Zacharias was the son of Jehoida, the priest. 2 Chr.24:20.
Jesus said that Zacharias was the son of Barachias. Mt.23:35. (Note: The name Barachias or Barachiah does not appear in the OT.)

In the Bible, people often had multiple names, and people were also not infrequently called “son of so-and-so” when in fact they were a grandson. Those are two possible explanations of this. But I think the more plausible explanation is that Jesus was referring to the prophet Zechariah, in saying, “that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechari’ah the son of Barachi’ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.” It was a sort of “beginning and end / A to Z” saying, seeing as Zechariah was perhaps the last prophet of Old Testament times. How he was murdered is not in the OT, but that could have been a Jewish tradition, or simply known by Jesus in His omniscience (being God).

There are many Zechariahs mentioned in the Bible. So Jesus narrows in on the specific one He meant by giving his (presumed) father. Our beloved skeptic claims that the father’s name never appears in the Old Testament. This is untrue (sometimes spellings of names can slightly change, for various reasons):

Zechariah 1:1 . . . the word of the LORD came to Zechari’ah the son of Berechi’ah, son of Iddo, the prophet, . . .

Seems pretty clear, huh? Zechariah, son of Jehoiada lived some 400 years before Zechariah son of Berechiah. With an explanation this plain, I don’t think we need to probe this supposed “contradiction” any further.

129) The coming of the kingdom will be accompanied by signs and miracles. Mt.24:29-33; Mk.13:24-29.
It will not be accompanied by signs and miracles since it occurs from within. Lk.17:20,21.

Matthew and Mark are talking about the Last Days or Day of Judgment; the Second Coming. That’s one sense of the “kingdom” yes, but Jesus also uses it in the sense of referring to His first coming, and this is the case with Luke 17:20-21. There are many other indications of His use of the word with the same meaning. For example:

Matthew 12:28  But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Mark 4:11 And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables;”

Luke 10:8-9 Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you; [9] heal the sick in it and say to them, `The kingdom of God has come near to you.’

Luke 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

“Apples and oranges”; hence, no contradiction. It must be frustrating for the skeptic who is systematically refuted by the Christian, but that’s how it goes.

130) The kingdom was prepared from the beginning. Mt.25:34.
Jesus said that he was going to go and prepare the kingdom. Jn.14:2,3.

It was “from the beginning” in the sense that God knew all about it: being out of time and knowing all things. To “prepare something” when it is about to be implemented is not the same thing as having known about the thing for a long time beforehand. So, for example, one of my two granddaughters is having her first birthday party tomorrow. Her parents are busy preparing for it. They have known that there would be such a party (for whatever children they had) from the time even before she was born (and we knew it, too). That’s not “contradictory” to preparing for it when the time arrives. This is one of the many “plain silly” charges in this relentlessly faulty and weak list.

131) Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. Mk.3:29.
All sins are forgivable. Acts 13:39; Col.2:13; 1 Jn.1:9.

Generally speaking, yes: all sins are forgivable. But as in most things, there is an exception. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the rejection of God altogether, which in a sense is not “forgivable” because the person hasn’t repented and asked to be forgiven, by the definition of having rejected God. In that sense, it can’t be forgiven, because “it takes two.”

One could say, as an analogy, “all horses are able to drink from the stream. But I can’t force my horse to do so if it doesn’t want to or choose to do so. I can only bring it to the stream. There are things that are made impossible by the contrary will of the creature involved. God can offer the free gift of grace and salvation to all, but we have to accept it. He won’t violate our free will because He thought it was senseless to create robots who could only do wat He commanded. Once free will is present, rebellion is always possible and can’t be altogether avoided.

132) The ascension took place while the disciples were seated together at a table. Mk.16:14-19.
The ascension took place outdoors at Bethany. Lk.24:50,51.
The ascension took place outdoors at Mt. Olivet. Acts 1:9-12.

Mark is an example of what is called “compression” or “telescoping”: techniques which were common, especially in ancient literature, and sometimes appear in the Bible. The text simply “jumps to a future occurrence. It’s obvious that the disciples weren’t indoors watching the Ascension, for how could they see Jesus being “taken up into heaven” (Mk 16:19)?

Bethany is located on the Mount of Olives (I’ve been there). That takes care of all the alleged “difficulties” here!

133) The holy spirit was with John from before he was born. Lk.1:15,41.
The holy spirit was with Elizabeth before John’s birth. Lk.1:41.
The holy spirit was with Zechariah. Lk.1:67.
The holy spirit was with Simeon. Lk.2:25.
The holy spirit is obtained by asking. Lk.11:13.
The holy spirit did not come into the world until after Jesus had departed. Jn.7:39; Jn.16:7; Acts 1:3-8.

Nice try. So much effort there! The Bible has many passages about the Holy Spirit being especially present with holy and especially “chosen” people, in both Testaments. That explains the first four instances. Anyone can search “Holy Spirit” in the Bible and find many more. In Luke Jesus was referring to that and also anticipating what was to come: which was every Christian believer being indwelt with the Holy Spirit as a matter of course: from the time of baptism (John 3:5-6; Acts 2:38; 9:17-18; 1 Cor 12:13; Titus 3:5).

Acts 1 and 2 are about the Day of Pentecost: the beginning of the Christian Church and the ability of every Christians to be filled with the Holy Spirit. That’s the difference: not that no one ever had the Spirit before, but that all Christians could henceforth. This was what John 7:39 and 16:7 were referring to. This was “developing Christian theology” so to speak. Developments are not contradictory because they always build on what went before.

134) Sometimes God is responsible for unbelief. 2 Thes.2:11,12.
Sometimes Jesus is responsible for unbelief. Mk.4:11,12.
The devil causes unbelief. Lk.8:12.

God never causes unbelief. Note regarding the first passage above, in the verse before it, it was human rebellion that brought it about: “those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved” (2 Thess 2:10). Mark is an instance of sarcasm: very common in the Bible. Jesus was telling parables at first, because He knew they would be understood by those who want to understand (“If any man has ears to hear, let him hear”: Mk 4:23) and not by those who don’t (hence the sarcasm). It was a matter of the will and being open (Mt 7:7-8). Jesus always wants [any and all of] us to believe (Mt 23:37) and to be saved (Lk 19:10; Jn 12:47).

Yes, the devil will cause unbelief and try to tempt us and get us to fall, but only if we let him. The late great comic Flip Wilson had an ongoing joke based on that: “the devil made me do it.” People laughed at that. Why? Well, it’s because we instinctively know that that mentality is a cop-out: that the devil can only “make” us do what we choose to do by our free will. Ultimately, we are responsible for our actions. We stand before God in the end to give account for ourselves, and “the devil made me do it” won’t cut it when the game is up at that time.

135) Whoever hates his brother is a murderer. 1 Jn.3:15.
If anyone claims to love God but hates his brother, he is a liar. 1 Jn.4:20.
No one can be a disciple of Jesus unless he hates his brother. Lk.14:26.

1 John 3:15 expresses the principle (stressed in the Sermon on the Mount) that murder and every other sin have to start in our hearty first” in our thoughts and intentions. Law recognizes this based on degrees of guilt, based in turn on how premeditated and “voluntary” it was.

1 John 4:20 is about rank hypocrisy. One can’t love God and hate other people, because loving God includes in it obedience to His command to love all people, even our enemies.

Luke 14:26 is an instance of exaggeration or hyperbole: the typically Hebraic way of expressing contrast. Literally it means “if you love your brother more than Me [God] you can’t follow Me” [since that would be idolatry]. For more on this, see: Dr. David Madison vs. Jesus #1: Hating One’s Family? [8-1-19] / Madison vs. Jesus #5: Cultlike Forsaking of Family? [8-5-19].

As you can see, these “contradictions” [?????!!!!!] are “apples and oranges.” They have northing directly to do with each other.

136) Believers do not come into judgment. Jn.5:24.
All people come into judgment. Mt.12:36; 2 Cor.5:10; Heb.9:27; 1 Pet.1:17; Jude 14,15; Rev.20:12,13.

John 5:24 means that a believer will be saved (“has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life”). “Judgment” there has the specific meaning of “judged as worthy of damnation” or more broadly, “conviction” in a legal sense. But everyone will be judged in the wider sense of having to give account before God, Who then declares if we are saved or not. John 5:24 doesn’t conflict with that, so this is much ado about nothing.

137) Jesus says that, if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is true. Jn.8:14.
Jesus says that, if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is not true. Jn.5:31.

Eric Lyons of Apologetics Press tackles this one:

When Jesus conceded to the Jews the fact that His witness was “not true,” He was not confessing to being a liar. Rather, Jesus was reacting to a well-known law of His day. In Greek, Roman, and Jewish law, the testimony of a witness could not be received in his own case (Robertson, 1997). “Witness to anyone must always be borne by someone else” (Morris, 1995, p. 287). The Law of Moses stated: “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15; cf. Matthew 18:15-17). The Pharisees understood this law well, as is evident by their statement to Jesus: “You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true” (John 8:13). . . .

But why is it that Jesus said to the Pharisees at a later time that His “witness is true” (John 8:14)? The difference is that, in this instance, Jesus was stressing the fact that His words were true. Even if in a court of law two witnesses are required for a fact to be established (a law Jesus enunciated in verse 17), that law does not take away the fact that Jesus was telling the truth, . . . (“Was Jesus’ Witness ‘True’ or ‘Not True’?”, 26 April 2009)

138) Men can choose whether or not to believe. Jn.5:38-47.
Only God chooses who will believe. Jn.6:44.

We have free will to accept God’s free offer of grace and salvation or reject it, as I have discussed in many previous replies. John 6:44 is expressing a truth that goes alongside what I just wrote: that only by grace is anyone saved at all. God’s grace draws all person who are eventually saved, but we have to cooperate with it. If we do so, there is a sense in which both things are true: 1) “we’re saved because we repented and accepted God’s free gift” and 2) “all who are saved are ultimately saved due to the enabling power of God’s grace.” The denial of this grace alone doctrine is the heresy of Pelagianism (being saved by works), which was condemned early on in Church history, along with the relatively better (but still heretical) view of Semi-Pelagianism. If we reject God’s grace, that’s all on us, not on God, who gives sufficient grace for anyone who wishes to be saved.

139) None of Jesus’ followers would be lost. Jn.10:27-29.
Some of Jesus’ followers would be lost. 1 Tim.4:1.

This is basically a rehash of the idea in #86. See my reply to that in the fourth installment.

140) Jesus is the ruling prince of this world. Rev.1:5.
The prince of this world will be cast out. Jn.12:31.

This is a strained, implausible interpretation in the desperate effort to find a contradiction. As with most words in the Bible, this one can and does have different meanings and applications. John 12:31 refers to the devil, who is the ruler of this world-system or kosmos in Greek. Jesus says (in the same sense): “My kingship is not of this world” (Jn 18:36). Yet in the next verse He uses the first sense: “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth.”

141) Jesus says all men will be saved. Jn.3:17.
Only 144,000 virgin men will be saved. Rev. 14:1-4.

John 3:17 means universal atonement: that all who wish to be — who are willing to be disciples of Jesus with all that that entails — can be saved. This is biblical teaching. Revelation 14 doesn’t teach that this was the sum total of all who are saved. It specifically calls them the “first fruits” (14:4); in other words, there are many more to come and these are only the “first batch.”

142) God wants all men to be saved. 1 Tim.2:3,4; 2 Pet.3:9.
God does not want all men to be saved. Jn.12:40.

See #86 in the fourth installment and my article on universal atonement. John 12:40 refers to the phenomenon of hardening hearts, which is very poorly understood. See my article explaining that, too. In fact, it is no proof at all of God supposedly not wanting all men to be saved.

143) Peter asks Jesus where he is going. Jn.13:36.
Thomas asks Jesus where he is going. Jn.14:5.
Jesus said that no one asked where he was going. Jn.16:5.

Erik Manning explains this:

Peter had a bit of a bodyguard complex and didn’t want to hear about Jesus taking off by himself. So when he asks the question in John 13:36 about where Jesus is going, he doesn’t get it.

And in John 14:1-5, Jesus talks about going to his Father to prepare places for them. Thomas asks a question, but it’s because he’s not picking up what Jesus is laying down. He doesn’t ask what Jesus means by any of these things. And we know Thomas is a bit slow on the uptake, as we find out later in John’s Gospel. Thomas and Peter were both thinking naturally.

We see that Jesus is disrupted with another question in John 14 but isn’t asked another question in John 15. Jesus so far has mentioned his departure, but then in John 15:22-16:4, he talks about persecution headed their way. You know, some heavy stuff. Now their hearts are sorrowful. They fall silent with sadness after being so inquisitive earlier.

It’s at 16:5 that Jesus is saying, “guys…you still don’t get it. You went quiet on me with all these hard sayings of persecution and me leaving. But I’m not leaving you alone. I’m sending the Spirit in my place. Now is the time to be asking questions again, but this time let’s be a little sharper and ditch the gloomy pessimism.”

After this, they interrupt Jesus again twice more in John 16, showing they still don’t understand what he’s talking about. Read John 16:17-19: . . .

Jesus then answers their questions, and finishes by saying “I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.” 

The light bulb finally seems to turn on. They quit looking at earthly things and start to see the spiritual realities Jesus is talking about. In John 16:28-30 the disciples exclaim, his disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.” Jesus answered them, “Do you now believe?“

The metaphors are over in their minds. Jesus is now speaking clearly. They fell silent after some heavy sayings from Jesus, but now it’s dawning on them after Jesus prompts them to probe further. . . .

Only when we leave no room for conversational nuance would we have to conclude Jesus had a mental lapse or that something strange is going on with the writer of John. (“Busting One of Bart Ehrman’s Favorite Bible Contradictions”, Cross-Examined.Org, 8-12-20)

144) Jesus lost only one disciple. Jn.17:12.
Jesus lost no disciples. Jn.18:9.

This is yet another rehash of #86 in the fourth installment. I don’t need to re-answer what I’ve already answered.

145) Jesus came into the world to bear witness to the truth. Jn.18:37.
The truth has always been evident. Rom.1:18-20.

Yes, the second thing is true, but the same passage notes how men deliberately reject what they know to be true. So Jesus had to come to offer more evidence for the truth and to bear witness to the character of God. That goes beyond what Romans 1 was addressing: which was only “his eternal power and deity” as evident “in the things that have been made” (1:20). Jesus revealed much more than that. Some truth about God has always been evident in His creation; Jesus brought a much fuller revelation of spiritual truth.

146) During his first resurrection appearance, Jesus gave his disciples the holy spirit. Jn.20:22.
The holy spirit was given to the disciples after his ascension. Acts 1:3-8.

This is a variation of #133 above.

147) The world could not contain all that could be written of Jesus. Jn.21:25.
All was written. Acts.1:1.

Acts 1:1 is a general statement. Luke was saying that his Gospel dealt with “all that Jesus began to do and teach” in a broad sense. We do this all the time in how we use language today. We might say, for example, “I’ve been all over the world.” No doubt there are several dozen countries where we haven’t been. This is understood by the hearers, who know that it is a broad, generalized statement. Or a woman says, “I’ve been unhappy all of my life.” Are we to understand that literally for every second she was unhappy? No. It’s understood that it means, “unhappiness is a recurrent problem and dominant theme in my life that I can’t seem to shake off or resolve.”

Thus, analogously, Acts 1:1 is general and broad, whereas John 21:25 exaggerates to make the point that “there is a lot more material out there about Jesus than what I have recorded.” There is no conflict, once the different use of language is understood, just as we do all the time in life in interpreting people using literal or non-literal language. Usually context helps us understand which is being employed. It’s the same in the Bible.

148) Obey the laws of men for it is the will of God. 1 Pet.2:13-15.
The disciples disobey the council. Acts 5:40-42.

149) Obey God, not men. Acts 5:29.
Obey men. It is God’s will. Rom.13:1-4; 1 Pet.2:13-15.

There is always an exception to the rule. Peter gave the general good principle that — all in all — we obey laws and governments and rulers. But the Jewish council in Acts laid down an unjust law that no Christian could follow: “they . . .charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus.” Early Christians were murdered by the Roman government because they wouldn’t swear an oath to Caesar that violated their consciences. We mustn’t do the latter, and that sometimes means going against laws. Many laws have been unjust and wicked, such as those upholding slavery and legalizing childkilling and infanticide, along with a host of other immoral practices that laws sometimes protect and sanction.

150) God hated Esau and loved Jacob even before they were born. Rom.9:10-13.
God shows no partiality and treats all alike. Acts 10:34; Rom.2:11.

Romans 9 has to be properly understood. See my article on that.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: mohamed hassan (2-22-21) [public domain / Pxhere.com]

***

Summary: A Bible skeptic has come up with 194 alleged biblical “contradictions” (usually recycled from old lists). I am systematically going through the list and refuting each one.

I will be resolving all of the alleged “contradictions” from the web page entitled “194 CONTRADICTIONS, New Testament.” It’s perpetually striking to observe how many of these are obviously not logical contradictions, and how very easy they are to refute (many being patently and evidently absurd). A few here and there do seem to be genuinely perplexing (at first glance) and require at least some thought and study and serious examination (they save my patience). But all are ultimately able to be (in my humble opinion) decisively resolved. Readers can decide whether I succeed in my task or not, in any given case. My biblical citations are from RSV. The words from the web page above will be in blue.

See further installments:

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#1-25) [4-5-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#26-50) [4-6-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#51-75) [4-7-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#76-100) [4-8-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#126-150) [4-9-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#151-175) [4-11-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#176-194) [4-11-22]

*****

101) One doubted. Jn.20:24.
Some doubted. Mt.28:17.
All doubted. Mk.16:11; Lk.24:11,14.

That’s “Doubting Thomas” in John, and he believed after Jesus appeared to him (20:28). In Mark, the disciples didn’t believe Mary Magdalene’s report of the risen Jesus at first, but later did believe (16:20). Matthew doesn’t specify later belief of the doubters, but doesn’t deny it (argument from silence). We know from the Gospels and early Church history that all the disciples (save Judas) were enthusiastic believers and evangelists, and all but John died martyr’s deaths.

In Luke, the two disciples on the road to Emmaus later believed (24:32-35), and so did the rest of the disciples (24:52). What is the point of this “objection”? So some folks momentarily doubted . . . so what?! People often doubt things and come around later. People can waver, too, between faith and doubt, or have a perpetually weak faith, or fall away from the faith altogether. The accounts reflect this, with regard to a miracle that most of us would find hard to accept at first. It perfectly reflects human nature and how people usually react. This is supposed to be a demonstration of logical contradictions in the Bible and there are none here.

I definitely need supernatural grace to endure the inanities of the final 93 supposed “contradictions.” But I will do it!

102) Jesus said that his blood was shed for many. Mk.14:24.
Jesus said his blood was shed for his disciples. Lu.22:20.

The disciples were a sub-group of the “many.” Duh! If taxes were lowered for the entire middle class, then my family would have our taxes lowered, too!

103) Simon of Cyrene was forced to bear the cross of Jesus. Mt.27:32; Mk.15:21; Lu.23:26.
Jesus bore his own cross. Jn.19:16,17.

Jesus obviously carried His cross in all accounts. It was part of the Roman punishment. John simply didn’t mention Simon of Syrene, and never stated, “and no one else bore His cross . . .”. For the tenth time: arguments from silence are not “contradictions” and they don’t prove anything, one way or the other.

104) Jesus was offered vinegar and gall to drink. Mt.27:34.
Jesus was offered vinegar to drink. Jn.19:29,30.
Jesus was offered wine and myrrh to drink. Mk.15:23.

The Domain for Truth website offers a characteristically thorough and devastating rebuttal:

1. Just a quick observation: What the skeptics call “vinegar” the NASB calls “sour wine.”
2. The skeptic tries to pit Mark 15:23 on the one hand against Mark 15:36 and Luke 23:36 on the other hand.  According to the skeptic Mark 15:23 teaches that the Roman soldiers gave wine and myrrh for Jesus to drink while both Mark 15:36 and Luke 23:36 teaches that the Roman soldiers gave Jesus vinegar/sour wine to drink.  Yet the two are not contradictory because these two sets of passages occurred at separate time[s].
   1. Notice for Mark 15:23 wine and myrrh was offered before Jesus was crucified.  How do we know that?
      1. Jesus being crucified is stated in the next verse in Mark 15:24a.
      2. Notice the offering of wine and myrrh occurred right when they got to the place of the crucifixion as the verse before mentioned (Mark 15:22).
      3. Jesus being offered wine and myrrh is also before the soldiers divided Jesus’ garments in Mark 15:24b, suggesting the offer of wine and myrrh was early on.
      4. Why would they offer wine and myrrh?  It was a way to make the pain less painful.  Yet Jesus did not take it.
   2. As a contrast Mark 15:36 and Luke 23:36 recorded chronologically near the end of how before Jesus died the Roman soldiers offered vinegar/sour wine to Jesus. How do we know that?
      1. Luke 23:36 parallel Mark 15:36.
      2. Mark 15:36 which mentioned Jesus being offered vinegar/sour wine is obviously 13 verses after Mark 15:23.  So after Jesus was first offered with wine they offered Him vinegar/sour wine.
      3. Note also Jesus died in the next verse from crucifixion in Mark 15:37.
      4. Why would they offer Jesus vinegar/sour wine instead of wine and myrrh towards the end?  Very likely the better wine ran out.  Don’t forget there were two other men being crucified next to Jesus that day and there’s also the possibility that the Roman soldiers themselves helped themselves to drink the wine.  This observation fit with the biblical timeline.
   3. The two different offer[s] by Roman soldiers to Jesus of something to drink along with the order of first the wine and then the vinegar/sour wine is also confirmed in Matthew 27 (see Matthew 27:33-34 and Matthew 27:48).
   4. Thus it is not a contradiction with Jesus being offered on the one hand wine mixed with myrrh while also being offered vinegar/sour wine on the other hand, since these different offering[s] from the Roman soldiers occurred [at] during different time[s]. . . .

3. The skeptic rightly noted Matthew 27:34 teaches that the Roman soldiers offered vinegar and gall.  That is what the text says.  However this added detail of “gall” does not contradict with the passages that mentioned Jesus was offered vinegar.  None of those passages said the Roman soldiers offered Jesus only vinegar, with nothing else added.

4. As a side note it is important to note that the Greek word for “gall” doesn’t necessarily have to refer to literal liquid from the liver; it can refer to anything that is bitter and the meaning of bitter can be seen in Acts 8:23 and the verbal form in John 7:23.  Matthew 27:34 indicates that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 69:21 with what the Roman soldiers offered to Jesus: “They also gave me gall for my food And for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.“ (“Bible Contradiction? What did the soldiers give Jesus to drink?”, 8-7-19; the numbers are 3-4, 6-7 in the original)

105. Jesus refused the drink offered him. Mk.15:23.
Jesus tasted the drink offered and then refused. Mt.27:34.
Jesus accepted the drink offered him. Jn.19:30.

In Mark and Matthew, this was before Jesus was crucified, as indicated by the preceding and following verses in both cases. In John 19:30, it occurred while He was on the cross, just before He died. Since this is two different times, it isn’t a contradiction. One justifiably wonders what the skeptic was drinking when he/she came up with this silly one.

106. Both “thieves” mocked Jesus on the cross. Mt. 27:44; Mk.15:32.
One “thief” sided with Jesus on the cross. Lu.23:39-41.

It could have been that the two reviled Him initially, and in the course of doing that, one of them thought the other was too harsh on Jesus, and reconsidered and started defending Him (and/or what Jesus may have said — unrecorded — persuaded him otherwise). Such a thing not infrequently happens in arguments and debates. Human beings can change their minds. Matthew and Mark don’t say they reviled Him “the entire time” or never ceased doing so, etc. So the possibility for change of heart and mind exists, and seems to be a perfectly plausible explanation.

107) Joseph of Arimathaea boldly asked for the body of Jesus. Mk.15:43.
Joseph of Arimathaea secretly asked for the body of Jesus. Jn.19:38.

The two attributes aren’t mutually exclusive. One can be both bold and operating in secret. Every special forces raid is of such a nature, as is every clandestine espionage assignment. It was “bold” to ask Pilate (not the nicest guy) this, whether it was in secret or not.

108) Jesus was laid in a nearby tomb. Mk.15:46; Lu.23:53; Jn.19:41.
Jesus was laid in Joseph’s new tomb. Mt.27:59,60.

Again, these things aren’t mutually exclusive. Matthew merely adds the information that it was Joseph’s own planned tomb. Someone not saying something doesn’t contradict another saying something. If these logic-challenged skeptics would ever grasp this elementary logical principle and fallacy, half of their objections would instantaneously vanish. But let them keep doing it and making themselves look silly and foolish. That is to the Christian’s (and Bible’s) advantage and the skeptic’s / atheist’s disadvantage, in a “PR” and “strength of argument” sense.

109) A great stone was rolled in front of the tomb. Mt.27:60; Mk.15:46.
There was nothing in front of the tomb. Lu.23:55; Jn.19:41.

There was no stone yet in Luke 23:55 because this referred to the time when Jesus was placed in the tomb (see 23:53-54). When women went back two days later, they found the stone rolled away (24:1-2). John 19:41 simply doesn’t mention the stone, but in John 20:1 we learn that there was one, which was rolled away. Therefore all four Gospels — taken together — note that the tomb had a stone in front of it, which was rolled away. No contradiction; rather, it is complete harmony. 0 for 109 . . .

110) Nicodemus prepared the body with spices. Jn.19:39,40.
Failing to notice this, the women bought spices to prepare the body later. Mk. 16:1; Lu.23:55,56.

What happened is explained right in the challenge! The women likely didn’t see that Jesus’ body was prepared with spices, and the Sabbath was quickly approaching (Jn 19:42) — where this work would be disallowed –, so that they probably concluded that there hadn’t been enough time for such preparation. The women saw that Jesus was laid out with a linen shroud (Lk 23:53-55), but wouldn’t necessarily know if He had been anointed with spices. Therefore, they prepared the spices and ointments (23:56) and returned after the Sabbath to apply them (24:1).

111) The body was anointed. Jn.19:39,40.
The body was not anointed. Mk.15:46 to 16:1; Lk.23:55 to 24:1.

Mark and Luke don’t deny that Jesus’ body was anointed. If they don’t, there is no necessary contradiction. I submit that the women simply weren’t aware that at least some spices had been applied (as indicated in John 19:39-40). In any event, no contradiction has been proven.

112) The women bought materials before the sabbath. Lu.23:56.
The women bought materials after the sabbath. Mk.16:1.

Luke 23:56 doesn’t assert this. It says they “returned [back home], and prepared spices and ointments.” Then they brought them on Sunday (Lk 24:1; Mk 16:1). At this point (after 112 examples), with such absolutely lousy, clueless alleged “contradictions” like this sterling example, one wonders whether the skeptic even reads the passages that he/she lists. Certainly even a basic understanding of what they mean is absent in the majority of cases: in the zealous rush to find a “gotcha!” contradiction to embarrass Christians with. The embarrassment is (or should be) all on their end.

113) Jesus was first seen by Cephas, then the twelve. 1 Cor.15:5.
Jesus was first seen by the two Marys. Mt.28:1,8,9.
Jesus was first seen by Mary Magdalene. Mk.16:9; Jn.20:1,14,15.
Jesus was first seen by Cleopas and others. Lu.24:17,18.
Jesus was first seen by the disciples. Acts 10:40,41.

1 Corinthians doesn’t say that he “first” appeared to Cephas (Peter). Peter is singled out as a witness not because he was the absolutely first person to see the risen Jesus, but rather, because he was the leader of the disciples and the early church (see the first half of the book of Acts).

Mark 16:9 actually does say that Mary Magdalene was the “first.” And so she was. John’s account is consistent with that notion. Does Matthew contradict this because of the second Mary? Not necessarily. Many scenarios can be easily imagined that instantly harmonize the passages. For example, maybe “the other Mary” happened to be looking away when the risen Jesus suddenly “met them”, so that Mary Magdalene was, technically, the first to see Him. Or Jesus met Mary Magdalene with no other women around, and then Matthew 28:9 records a second instance of His appearing to her, except with another woman, too.

Luke 24 has the story of the two men on the road to Emmaus. Nothing definitely indicates they were the first; indeed, they could not have been because various Gospels record Mary Magdalene and the other Mary seeing Jesus early in the morning on the first Easter Sunday, whereas in this account it is said that the time was “toward evening” with the day being “far spent” (24:29).

Acts says that the disciples were in the select group to whom Jesus appeared, as opposed to “all the people.” But it doesn’t say they were absolutely the first, and doesn’t therefore rule out Mary Magdalene being the first person, which is expressly stated in Mark. Conclusion?: all of these passages are perfectly harmonious and pose no problem for biblical infallibility.

114) The two Marys went to the tomb. Mt.28:1.
The two Marys and Salome went to the tomb. Mk.16:1.
Several women went to the tomb. Lu.24:10.
Only Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. Jn.20:1.

So Matthew didn’t mention Salome. So what? That’s of no relevance. In light of Luke, we can conclude that several women (more than the two Marys) saw the empty tomb (though not necessarily the risen Jesus). Mary Magdalene could have told these other women about the tomb and also the fact that she had seen the risen Jesus. This implies repeated trips to witness the empty tomb, which was easy because it was right outside of town.

As for John, this may have been an earlier, initial visit by Mary Magdalene alone: perhaps indicated by “while it was still dark.” Then she went again with others. The text never states that “only Mary” went to the tomb, or that “Mary alone and no other woman” did so. Those are the sorts of words that would be required for an actual contradiction to be present.  As it is, no contradiction has been established: not even to the slightest degree. The text simply records an instance with Mary Magdalene alone, without denying that other women saw the risen Jesus, too.

115) It was dawn when Mary went to the tomb. Mt.28:1; Mk.16:2.
It was dark when Mary went to the tomb. Jn.20:1.

Exactly! This confirms my hypothesis that Mary Magdalene made an earlier pre-dawn visit (see #114). Is there any law against that? No. Is it inconceivable? No. Is it possible? Yes. The skeptic acts as if no one could have possibly visited Jesus’ tomb (where the greatest miracle in history had just occurred) more than once.

116) An angel sat on the stone at the door of the tomb. Mt.28:2.
A man was sitting inside the tomb. Mk.16:5.

There could have simply been two angels. Or Matthew was referring to the time when the stone was actually rolled away, per my reasoning in my paper, Resurrection #14: When Was the Stone Rolled Away? [4-27-21].

117) Two men were standing inside the tomb. Lk.24:3,4.
Two angels were sitting inside the tomb. Jn.20:12.

Angels are often called “men” in Scripture. Luke indicates they were angels by describing them as having “dazzling apparel”, while John uses the description, “angels in white.”

118) Peter did not go into the tomb but stooped and looked inside. Lk.24:12.
Peter did go into the tomb, and another disciple stooped and looked inside. Jn.20:3-6.

Luke 24:12 is a disputed verse, not found in the earliest manuscripts, which is why RSV doesn’t even include it. So it’s irrelevant to the discussion.

119) After the resurrection, the disciples held Jesus by the feet. Mt.28:9.
After the resurrection, Jesus told Thomas to touch his side. John 20:27.
After the resurrection, Jesus said that he was not to be touched. Jn.20:17.

See my paper, Resurrection #18: “Touch Me Not” & Mary Magdalene [4-29-21].

120) Mary first saw Jesus at the tomb. Jn.20:11-15.
Mary first saw Jesus on her way home. Mt.28:8-10.

I proposed that John records a pre-dawn Sunday visit by Mary Magdalene (see #114 and it’s alluded to by objection #115), which was the first recorded post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus to anyone.

121) The women entered the tomb. Mk.16:5; Lk.24:3.
The women stayed outside the tomb. Jn.20:11.

This again refers to Mary’s pre-dawn visit alone (see my reply #114 and #120). It’s different things happening at different times and hence, no contradiction. I know it must be frustrating for the skeptic, but logic is what it is. I didn’t make it up.

122) The disciples were frightened when they saw Jesus. Lk.24:36,37.
The disciples were glad when they first saw Jesus. Jn.20:20.

In Luke it was because they (just two of them) “supposed that they saw a spirit”: an event which almost always causes fear in recorded instances in Scripture. Then Jesus showed them His hands and feet (24:39) and they settled down. In John (a different incident) they were glad for the same reason: because He “showed them his hands and his side”: quickly proving that He was Jesus, so they wouldn’t be afraid.

123) Twelve disciples saw Jesus. 1 Cor.15:5.
Eleven disciples saw Jesus. Thomas was not there. Mt.28:16,17; Jn.20:19-25.

In 1 Corinthians, either it was after Judas’ replacement with Matthias (Acts 1:20-26), so there were again twelve, or the title “twelve” was being used as a description of the group (see my paper, Resurrection #26: “Twelve” or Eleven Disciples? [5-4-21]). Matthew 28 was a time right before Jesus’ Ascension, before Judas had been replaced. Hence, “eleven.” John uses “twelve” as the group title, even though Judas had by then departed. No problem here . . .

124) The disciples doubted that Jesus had risen from the dead. Mt.28:17.
The Pharisees and chief priests believed it possible. Mt.27:62-66.

“Some” did, for a time, yes. It was the typical human skepticism regarding miracles. The enemies of Jesus believed no such thing. In the passage from Matthew above, they thought the disciples would steal Jesus’ body and fake a resurrection, which is why they asked for a guard in front of the tomb. I search in vain for any “contradiction” here.

125) Jesus ascended on the third day after the resurrection. Lk.24:21,50,51.
Jesus ascended the same day as the crucifixion. Lk.23:42 43.
Jesus ascended forty days after the resurrection. Acts 1:3,9.

See my paper, Seidensticker Folly #15: Jesus’ Ascension: One or 40 Days? [9-10-18].

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: mohamed hassan (2-22-21) [public domain / Pxhere.com]

***

Summary: A Bible skeptic has come up with 194 alleged biblical “contradictions” (usually recycled from old lists). I am systematically going through the list and refuting each one.