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” (#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]

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

*****

76. At the Mount of Olives, Jesus told Peter he would deny him three times. Mt.26:30-34.
At the Passover meal, Jesus told Peter he would deny him three times. Lu.22:13,14,34.

John Oakes, of the excellent Evidence for Christianity site, answers:

There is no contradiction here. MML & J all agree that the scene occurred at the end of the Lord’s Supper scene. Perhaps it happened as they were leaving as a little side conversation. That fits the description. By the way, the Mount of Olives is where the Garden of Gethsemane is. So, when Matthew and Mark say that after they sang, they went to the Mount of Olives, it could just as well have said that after the song they went to the Garden of Gethsemane. It is a little different that M & M say after the song they left for the Mt. of Olives, then describes the three rooster conversation, then has them actually travel to the Mount of Olives. My only thought is that perhaps all got up to go, then Jesus had the little conversation with Peter as they were preparing to leave for the Mount of Olives after the formal Seder service had ended. What is unanimous in all four gospels is that the more private conversation between Jesus and Peter happened at the end of the Seder meal, before they reached the Mt. of Olives. (“Did Jesus tell Peter he would deny him at the Mt. of Olives (Mark, Matthew) or during the Last Supper (Luke and John)?”, 4-16-12)

77. Peter was to deny Jesus before the cock crowed. Mt.26:34; Lk.22:34; Jn.13:38.
Peter was to deny Jesus before the cock crowed twice. Mk.14:30.

78. The cock crowed once. Mt.26:74.
The cock crowed twice. Mk.14:72.

Note that Mark’s second crow is after a first one, with a gap of time. This is key to understanding the non-contradiction. RSV doesn’t indicate when the first crow occurred, but KJV, utilizing a different (later, inferior) manuscript, has it after the first denial (14:68). Then after his third denial, the Gospel of Mark reads “And immediately the cock crowed a second time” (14:72). This alleviates any supposed difficulty, because it’s not a matter of “one crow only” vs. “two crows in a row at one time” (after the third denial).

Rather, we must note what each Gospel was specifically referring to. Matthew, Luke, and John all refer to what Mark states is the second crow: that occurred after Peter’s third denial. But none of the three states that this particular crow is the “only” one. Therefore, it’s not contradictory. Nor does it become one simply because three gospels didn’t mention an additional earlier crow made after the first denial (the fallacy of argument from silence).

79. Peter makes his first denial to a maid and some others. Mt.26:69,70.
It was only to the maid. Mk.14:66-68; Lk.22:56,57; Jn.18:17.

Matthew has him answering the maid, while others nearby also hear. We would expect this, since it was within a group of people, including “bystanders” (Mt 26:73; Mk 14:70) and “servants and officers” (Jn 18:18). He wasn’t responding to them, but to the maid. 

If I was talking to my wife (say about some car repairs) and one or more of my four children (or now, grandchildren) are also listening, no one would say that I was replying — or talking to — to all of them, when I was responding only to my wife. Nor if I were riding a bus with a friend and rather vehemently stated, “I’m not a Democrat!” others will also hear, but nevertheless, it’s silly to think that I was replying to them. That’s how foolish and desperate this so-called “contradiction” is. 

But in fact, Mark, Luke, and John also make it apparent that others heard, too (while they weren’t being replied to). They all mention that Peter was by a fire warming himself, with others, when he replied to the first maid (Mk 14:67-68; Lk 22:55-56; Jn 18:17-18). Obviously, then, the others around the fire would also have heard his reply. Matthew is the only one that didn’t mention the fire. But none of this is a contradiction in the slightest. Much ado about nothing.

80) Peter’s second denial was to another maid. Mt.26:71,72.
It was to the same maid. Mk.14:69,70.
It was to a man and not a maid. Lk.22:58.
It was to more than one person. Jn.18:25.

(81) Peter’s third denial was to several bystanders. Mt.26:73,74; Mk.14:69,70.
It was to one person. Lk.22:59,60.
It was to a servant. Jn.18:26,27.

Matthew specifies “a maid” (26:69), “another maid” (26:71), and “bystanders” (26:73). In the latter instance, a direct quote is given, so it is likely from just one of them, as they would not — obviously — all say in unison exactly the same words.

In Mark it is “one of the maids of the high priest” (14:66), “the maid . . . began again to say” (14:69), and “the bystanders” (14:70), again with a direct quote for the latter, suggesting that only one person said it. The only possible difference with Matthew is whether it was the same maid or a second one in the second instance. Expositor’s Greek Testament offers a solution (which occurred to me as well):

[I]t means the maid on duty in that particular place, the forecourt . . . Peter was a second time spoken to (or at) on the subject of his connection with Jesus, [as opposed to it being] the same person [who] spoke in both cases.

If this is the case (and the grammar permits it as a possibility), then “again” would have the meaning of “in addition to the first maid.”

Luke says it was “a maid” (22:56), “some one else” (22:58), and “still another” (22:59). That’s perfectly consistent with both Mark and Luke, provided my explanation for the “second maid” in Mark is accepted.  

John has “The maid who kept the door” (18:17). Thus all four specify a maid in the first instance. Then John has “They” (with an exact quotation: 18:25), which can be an unspecified second maid (per Matthew and Mark), and the third inquiry in John was from “One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off” (18:26). This is a specified person, which is consistent with a “bystander” (Matthew and Mark) and “still another” (Luke). Taking all four accounts together, we arrive at the following specific conclusions as to the identity of the three questioners:

1) “one of the maids of the high priest” / “The maid who kept the door” (Mk 14:66 and Jn 18:17)

2) “another maid”: perhaps of the forecourt (Mt 26:71)

3) “One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off” (Jn 18:26)

As demonstrated, then, there is no inconsistency across the four accounts in this regard. Some descriptions are merely more vague. If I’m called by four different people, “a man”, “a Catholic apologist”, “Dave”, and “a guy raised in Detroit” this is not contradictory at all, as all four descriptions are true statements. The one point that might be suspected to be a contradiction (Mk 14:69) has a perfectly plausible explanation. So, nice try again, but no cigar . . . 

82) The chief priests bought the field. Mt.27:6,7.
Judas bought the field. Acts 1:16-19.

The Truth in Faith website offers an excellent rebuttal:

[W]ho purchased the field directly? The chief priests did. Matthew focuses on how they were even being wickedly pious with the money Judas threw back at them (i.e. They said it would not be lawful to put it back in the treasury of the Temple…as if they were being holy). The difference between Matthew’s account and Luke’s in Acts is answered by saying that in Mathew’s account he shows us the chief priests, and not Judas, directly purchased the field. They literally directly used the money to acquire the field.

Then in Luke’s account his focus is not on the chief priests as they are not even mentioned here. Rather Luke’s focus is on the Apostles’ recounting how they were minus one Apostle, Judas. So he notes that Judas was gone, because he acquired this field with blood money and hung himself. I believe Luke’s version is showing us that while in Matthew’s version the chief priests directly purchased the field, Luke puts the focus on that it was Judas’ wickedness that indirectly purchased the field. . . .

Do you wish to know who literally bought the field with money? This was the chief priests who conducted themselves wickedly as Matthew catalogs in his Gospel. Do you wish to know how it was though the field came to be purchased? This was due to Judas Iscariot’s wickedness and betrayal of Christ as Luke catalogs in his treatise. This is not a contradiction, it is rather two witnesses of the same event focusing on two different subjects and their actions which both lead to the same outcome (the purchase of the Field). . . .

You could say both Judas and the chief priests purchased the field and be right in both senses. How? Because the money can both be said to be Judas’ and the chief priests. The money was given to Judas for his services in leading Jesus to be arrested. So it was payoff that belonged to Judas. Yet Judas gave it back to the chief priests in remorse, so then it also belonged to the chief priests. This is not a contradiction, it is a two angles of the same story being given by two different writers of Scripture that had two different focuses in how they shared the story. Both are true, and both have different lessons to show from the one story. (“Who Purchased the Field of Blood?”)

I also supplied an answer to this (citing someone else) in my paper, Resurrection #24: Judas & the Potter’s Field (5-3-21).

83) Judas threw down the money and left. Mt.27:5.
Judas used the coins to buy the field. Acts 1:18.

See, Resurrection #19: When Was Judas Paid? [4-30-21]

84) Judas hanged himself. Mt.27:5.
Judas fell headlong and burst his head open. Acts 1:18.

This is one of the “classics.” I’ve dealt with it twice:

Death of Judas: Alleged Bible Contradictions Debunked [9-27-07]

Resurrection #23: How Did Judas Die? [5-3-21]

85) Jesus did not answer any of the charges. Mt.27:12-14; Lk.23:9.
Jesus answered some of the charges. Mk.14:61,62.
Jesus answered all of the charges. Jn.18:33-37.

In Matthew 27:11, right before the passage above, Jesus answered Pilate’s question: “Are you the King of the Jews?” by saying, “You have said so”: which was another way of saying “yes” (see my reply to #75 in my previous installment). It’s not mentioned above that Matthew 27 dealt with Jesus’ second appearance before the high priest, scribes, and elders: on the morning of the day of His crucifixion.

The previous meeting / monkey trial was the night before, and He definitely answered the question of the high priest (“I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”: 26:63), by saying, “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (26:64).

But in the second meeting, He didn’t answer them (27:12). Why bother? They had already concluded He was a blasphemer, worthy of death, the night before. There was nothing left to talk about, from Jesus’ perspective. Jesus had already said what He needed to say, to bear witness to Himself.

In Luke 23:9, we learn that Jesus didn’t answer Herod. Mark 14:61-62 records Jesus giving essentially the same answer to the high priest that Matthew records in 26:64. Thus far, no contradiction at all.  John 18 is about Jesus’ replies to Pontius Pilate. He responded with a rhetorical question regarding being King of the Jews, and then two “straight answers” about the same thing, which are perfectly harmonious with Matthew 27:11.

So where, pray tell, is the contradiction? Why is this nonsense even brought up at all? Two of the passages are about the same answer to the high priest. A third is about Jesus not answering Herod (apples and oranges). A fourth is about a short discussion with Pilate. “Apples and oranges” and no contradiction again. Zero, zilch, zip, nada . . . “Objections” like this one are an insult to everyone’s intelligence. But it’s been firmly refuted for the record, and that is worth the twenty minutes I spent on it.

86) Jesus said that eternal life would be given to all that were given to him. Jn.11:27-29; Jn.17:12.
Jesus released Judas in order to keep this promise. Jn.18:5-9.

In John 11:26 Jesus said, “whoever lives and believes in me shall never die.” Judas simply stopped believing in Him. In John 17:12 Jesus states: “While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled.” Thus the first statement above is false: Judas was “given” to Jesus but he fell away and was lost. Judas Iscariot was the exception to the rule of faithful disciples.

Jesus knew, of course, from the beginning that Judas would fall away and betray Him. In John 18:9 Jesus says, “Of those whom thou gavest me I lost not one.” He didn’t “lose” Judas. Judas brought about his own loss of salvation and damnation. I see no contradiction here. It’s straining at gnats in a futile effort to try to come up with one. So far it’s a 0 for 86 record: not very impressive.

87) The chief priests and elders persuade the people. Mt.27:20.
Only the chief priests persuade the people. Mk.15:11.
The chief priests and the people persuade themselves. Lk.23:13-23.

This had to do with asking for the release of Barabbas rather than Jesus. It’s an argument from silence, and they never prove anything. Mark doesn’t say that “Only the chief priests” persuaded the people. Thus the above characterization is a misrepresentation of the biblical text. Mark wrote that “the chief priests stirred up the crowd”. Yes they did; so did the elders. The lack of an exclusive term like “only” in Mark accounts for the difference between a contradiction and two complementary statements. This is an example of the latter.

Reading the three stories side-by-side, we see that the priests and elders seek to persuade the people to release Barabbas. Mark mentions only one (so what?: it’s an argument from silence). After that, (in Luke) Pilate calls them and the common people together to find out who they want released. It’s all perfectly harmonious.

Logic 0101. Please pray for these folks to take a course in logic for their own good! :-) And please add a prayer for my patience and longsuffering, too, if you could. I still have 107 of these silly pseudo-“objections” to go, and will need tons of patience — only by God’s grace — to endure the relentless illogic and “anti-logic” again and again. But I press on. My patience has survived 87 assaults; I’ll get to the end. Thanks so much for any prayers offered!

88) Jesus is given a scarlet robe. Mt.27:28.
Jesus is given a purple robe. Mk.15:17; Jn.19:2.
Jesus is given a gorgeous robe. Lk.23:11.

Eric Lyons of Apologetics Press aptly explains:

According to A.T. Robertson [Word Pictures in the New Testament], there were various shades of purple and scarlet in the first century and it was not easy to distinguish the colors or tints. (“Was the Robe Placed on Jesus Scarlet or Purple?”, 26 May 2004)

One historical example illustrates this “spectrum” of colors:

The early Christian church adopted many of the symbols of the Roman Empire, including the importance of the color scarlet. . . . By a church edict in 1295, Cardinals of the church, second in authority to the Pope, wore red robes, but a red closer in color to the purple of the Byzantine Emperors, a color coming from murex, a type of mollusk. After the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453, however, the imperial purple was no longer available, and Cardinals began instead to wear scarlet made from kermes. (Wikipedia, “Scarlet (color)” )

One can easily understand people variously describing these Cardinals’ robes from 1295 to 1453, as scarlet or red or purple. I’ve gotten into friendly disputes several times with my daughter about what color something was. We simply saw it differently. The Gospel writers were human like the rest of us. Color can be a very subjective thing. I’ll now cite several commentaries on Matthew 27:28:

Here again we have a technical word, the chlamys or paludamentum, used for the military cloak worn by emperors in their character as generals, and by other officers of high rank (Pliny, xxii. 2, 3). St. Mark and St. John call it purple (Mark 15:17; John 19:2); but the “purple “of the ancients was “crimson,” and the same colour might easily be called by either name. (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)

The ancients gave the name “purple” to any color that had a mixture of “red” in it, and consequently these different colors might be sometimes called by the same name. (Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)

Scarlet was the proper colour for the military chlamys. . . . St Mark has the less definite “purple;” St John “a purple robe.” Purple, however, is used by Latin writers to denote any bright colour. (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)

Luke 23:11 is a different incident altogether: involving Herod‘s soldiers, whereas the other three are about Pilate’s Roman soldiers mocking Jesus. So Luke 23:11 is completely irrelevant to this discussion (and even if it was, it mentioned no color). The use of both “purple” and “scarlet” has been quite adequately explained.

89) The sign says, “This is Jesus the King of the Jews”. Mt.27:37.
The sign says, “The King of the Jews”. Mk.15:26.
In three languages, the sign says, “This is the King of the Jews”. Lk.23:38.
In the same three languages, the sign says, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews”. Jn.19:19,20.

The Domain for Truth site tackles this one:

1. While noting what are the differences we must also ask what is the same in all four verses.  In the Greek all four verses from all four Gospels in the New Testament had the exact Greek phrase “Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ.”  Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ translated means “the king of the Jews.”
2. Both Matthew 27:37 and Luke 23:38 record Οὗτός while both Mark 15:26 and John 19:19 account does not mention the word Οὗτός.  The Greek word Οὗτός is a demonstrative pronoun meaning “this.”  However Matthew 27:37 and Luke 23:38 does not contradict Mark 15:26 and John 19:19 even though Mark 15:26 and John 19:19 does not mention “this.”  Mark 15:26 and John 19:19 would be contradicting Matthew 27:37 and Luke 23:38 if the former mentioned that there were not Οὗτός in the inscription.  But Mark 15:26 and John 19:19 doesn’t say that.  If I can put it in a way that the skeptic might understand the absence of Οὗτός in both Mark 15:26 and John 19:19 should not be taken as evidence of the absence of Οὗτός in the inscription especially when other accounts mentioned it.
3. The same reasoning in point 4 applies to the Greek word ΙΗΣΟΥΣ.  ΙΗΣΟΥΣ is the Greek word for “Jesus.”  “Jesus” appears in both Matthew 27:37 and John 19:19 but does not appear in Mark 15:26 and Luke 23:38.  Again we do not actually have a contradiction here for the absence of the name of Jesus does not mean it is an evidence of absence of the name in the inscription when other accounts mentioned it.
4. In contrast to the Synoptic Gospel only the Gospel of John mentioned that the inscription mentioned Jesus was from Nazareth.  Again, remember the reasoning explained in point 4 that the silence of some verses is not the same thing as a denial that the inscription does not contain the word “Nazareth,” which would be the requirement that needs to be fulfilled in order for it to actually be a Bible contradiction.
5. Just because some of the writers of the Gospels shortened the inscription that does not mean it is a problem.  People today do the same thing all the time in summarizing what is written. . . .
6. John 19:20 also mentioned that the inscription above the crucified Jesus was written in “Hebrew, Latin and in Greek.”  There’s nothing that demanded the Roman soldiers to write each language exactly the same. . . . it is possible that there are further reasons why we do not have Bible contradictions going on here since the four Gospels might have reported on the inscriptions as written in different languages.   Thus we would not be surprised that some passages have the stative verb “is” while others do not, and other verses mentioned Nazareth while others do not, etc. (“Bible Contradiction? What did the sign over Jesus’s head say?”, 3-21-17; in the original, the section numbers were 3-7, and 9)

90) Jesus asks God, The Father, why he has forsaken him. Mt.27:46.
Jesus said that he and The Father were one in the same. Jn.10:30; Jn.17:11,21,22.

Jesus and God the Father are both God: two Persons of the Holy Trinity. This is correct. The attempted “contradiction” contends that if Jesus felt “forsaken” by His Father, then they couldn’t have been one after all. Catholic Answers: the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world, offers a cogent reply:

If someone were to say, “I pledge allegiance to the flag” or “Our Father who art in heaven,” most people could either finish the quotation or prayer or at least understand the ideas being expressed. That is because certain quotations in our culture, whether secular or religious, are known and even memorized because of their importance.

This was true of the psalms in Jesus time. He needed only to say the first line, and most Jews would have known the rest, or at least the message.

Jesus was quoting Psalm 22, a messianic psalm that vividly describes the agony the suffering servant would endure. God the Father did not abandon his Son in his Son’s suffering but allowed him in his humanity to experience the sense of divine abandonment that humans often feel during times of need, and especially when in sin. Just as we often feel that God has abandoned us when we are suffering (even though this isn’t the case), so the Son of God in his humanity experienced that aspect of human suffering as well. He died for our sins, and the weight of those sins—and thus the feeling of abandonment—must have been exceedingly heavy at that point.

By quoting this psalm, Jesus shows that he is the fulfillment of that prophecy and that he will be vindicated, which is evident in the psalm’s triumphant ending. (“Did God the Father Abandon His Son?”)

Some of the “triumphant” passages in the second half of this Psalm show clearly that Jesus wasn’t expressing a total abandonment at all:

Psalm 22:24 For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; and he has not hid his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him.

Psalm 22:26 The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek him shall praise the LORD! . . .

Karlo Broussard, from the staff of Catholic Answers, adds more related information:

Jesus doesn’t despair and God doesn’t abandon him. Jesus’s death on the cross, which he freely accepts (John 10:18), is a means to an end: the manifestation of God’s power over his enemies and the drawing of the peoples of the earth into relationship with God.

Here are two ways that we can further support this interpretation.

First, Psalm 22 is not the only psalm with prophetic overtones that Jesus cites while on the cross. He also cites Psalm 31:5 when he cries in Luke 23:46, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” Like Psalm 22, Psalm 31 expresses an affliction that is similar to what Jesus is experiencing:

I am the scorn of all my adversaries, a horror to my neighbors, an object of dread to my acquaintances; those who see me in the street flee from me. I have passed out of mind like one who is dead; I have become like a broken vessel. Yea, I hear the whispering of many—terror on every side!—as they scheme together against me, as they plot to take my life (vv.11-12).

Despite the affliction, the psalmist expresses trust and hope for deliverance: “But I trust in thee, O Lord, I say, ‘Thou art my God.’ My times are in thy hand; deliver me from the hand of my enemies and persecutors!” (vv.14-15). And later the psalmist blesses the Lord for hearing his prayer: “Blessed be the Lord, for he has wondrously shown his steadfast love to me . . . thou didst hear my supplications, when I cried to thee for help” (vv.21-22).

By citing this psalm, Jesus sees his suffering as fulfilling the affliction that the Psalmist describes. He also knows that God will follow through on his promise of deliverance.

Given this citation of Psalm 31:5, we can conclude that Jesus cites Psalm 22 to the same end: he’s living out the affliction that the Psalmist describes and he knows that God will deliver him. Thus, the cry is not one of despair due to God abandoning him, but an expression of hope for deliverance. . . .

[W]e can be sure that Jesus’s cry was not an expression of despair. It was actually the opposite: an expression of hope in God’s deliverance through the resurrection and an expression of desire for the salvation of the world. (“Did the Father Forsake Jesus?”, 4-18-19)

91) The centurion says, “Truly this was the son of God”. Mt.27:54.
The centurion says, “Truly this man was the son of God”. Mk.15:39.
The centurion says, “Certainly, this was a righteous man”. Lk.23:47.
There was no centurion. Jn.19:31-37.

The centurion could have said all those things. The Synoptics simply report them a little differently (as we routinely expect from different reports of the same thing; this is actually a mark of truthfulness and trustworthiness, not inaccuracy), but they are harmonious and not contradictory. We must always keep in mind the logical principle expressed in #89 above: “the silence of some verses is not the same thing as a denial.”

John’s not mentioning a centurion who said this is no evidence that it didn’t happen. It’s only evidence that either: 1) he didn’t recall it, or 2) his sources were not aware of it or 3) he decided not to include it, if he knew of it, for whatever reason. But it doesn’t annihilate the report of the other three Gospels, because it doesn’t deny their report, which would actually be a contradiction.

No problem here!

92) Jesus was crucified at the third hour. Mk.15:25.
Jesus was still before Pilate at the sixth hour. Jn.19:13,14.

The late great Protestant apologist Norman Geisler answers this charge:

Both Gospel writers are correct in their assertions. The difficulty is answered when we realize that each Gospel writer used a different time system. John follows the Roman time system while Mark follows the Jewish time system.

According to Roman time, the day ran from midnight to midnight. The Jewish 24 hour period began in the evening at 6 p.m. and the morning of that day began at 6 a.m. Therefore, when Mark asserts that at the third hour Christ was crucified, this was about 9 a.m. John stated that Christ’s trial was about the sixth hour. This would place the trial before the crucifixion and this would not negate any testimony of the Gospel writers. This fits with John’s other references to time. For example, he speaks about Jesus being weary from His journey from His trip from Judea to Samaria at the “sixth hour” and asking for water from the woman at the well. Considering the length of His trip, His weariness, and the normal evening time when people come to the well to drink and to water their animals, this fits better with 6 p.m., which is “the sixth hour” of the night by Roman time reckoning. The same is true of John’s reference to the tenth hour in John 1:39, which would be 10 a.m., a more likely time to be out preaching than 4 a.m. (“Was Jesus Crucified in the Third Hour or the Sixth Hour?”, Defending Inerrancy, 2014, from a book published in 1992)

93) The women looked on from “afar”. Mt.27:55; Mk.15:40; Lk.23:49.
The women were very close. Jn.19:25.

I agree that the Synoptics report onlookers being “afar off” (KJV) or at a “distance” (RSV). If tradition is correct, we know the spot where they stood, and I stood on it in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in October 2014. My rough estimate is that it was about half of a football field away (150 feet). This is consistent with the biblical “afar” or at a “distance.”

Only the Gospel of John reports Jesus’ mother having been at the crucifixion. And it’s the only Gospel that alludes to one of the disciples — John Himself — being there. It appears to have been a report of a different occurrence from what the Synoptics detail. We have no time frame given. We know that Jesus’ agony and death on the cross took about six hours.

In fact, we have some possible clues about the time of each described observance. In terms of the order of things mentioned in the text, Mark refers to the female onlookers three verses (15:40) after He notes Jesus’ death (15:37). It’s not proof, but it’s a hint or indication that they were there at the time of His death. Matthew utilizes the same order of report: Jesus’ death (27:50) / description of the women (27:55-56). It’s the same again in Luke: Jesus’ death (23:46) and noting the women and other “acquaintances” present (23:49).

John, on the other hand, seems to place his scene shortly after Jesus was nailed to the cross, since he talks about the soldiers dividing up Jesus’ garments: “When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts” (19:23) and right after mentioning that, he describes “his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene” who were “standing by the cross” (19:25), along with John himself (19:26).

Where there is overlap of mentioned women (present near the cross and at a “distance”), it’s still not undeniably contradictory, since that would require variant assertions of a person being in two different places at a given particular time or the entire time.  For example, Mary Magdalene was mentioned as being close to the cross with Mary the mother of Jesus, and further off (in Matthew and Mark). She would simply have moved (possibly being forced to move by the Roman soldiers) from one place to the other: perhaps earlier by the cross and later (up to the time of Jesus’ death) at a distance.

An actual logical contradiction regarding our topic would be if some verses describing the crucifixion stated that all of the female onlookers (whether Mary, the mother of Jesus is mentioned by name or not) were without exception, always standing at a distance, the entire time of the crucifixion, while John 19:25 taught that Mary, Jesus’ mother stood near the cross.  That’s an actual contradiction. There are a number of scenarios that can be imagined that would be undeniably contradictory.

My explanation is not in the least inconsistent with all the relevant texts considered together. Nothing in those texts would preclude such a theory, which is not implausible at all. Two different things were being recorded: observance from afar, and observance much closer to the cross. And even overlap of the women mentioned is not a contradiction unless the claims contradict and are incoherent and confused with regard to the specific times and locations involved.

94) The last recorded words of Jesus were:
Version 1: “Eli, Eli …My God, My God why have you forsaken me” Mt.27:46.
Version 2: “Eloi, Eloi…My God, My God why have you forsaken me” Mk.15:34.
Version 3: “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit”. Lk.23:46.
Version 4: “It is finished”. Jn.19:30.

Matthew doesn’t present these as Jesus’ last words, because four verses later it states: “And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit” (27:50). Luke provides the actual words He said when He “yielded up his spirit” and we know that those were His last words because in the same verse (Lk 23:46) it immediately adds: “And having said this he breathed his last.” Mark adds in 15:37: “And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed his last.” This is perfectly harmonious with Luke 23:46 as well, which also noted that Jesus was “crying with a loud voice.”

All three Synoptics have Jesus talking loud and then dying. Luke provides the actual words. This is not a contradiction! John reads: “When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, ‘It is finished’; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” Here all we need do is note that Jesus said one more thing before He “gave up his spirit”: as all the Synoptics agree. Luke’s “having said this” strongly indicates that He died right after having said, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” The absence of these words in three Gospels is not contradictory. They’re all harmonious.

Our beloved critic could have figured all this out if he did the slightest amount of analysis of all these passages. This ain’t calculus or nuclear physics.

95) A guard was placed at the tomb the day after the burial. Mt.27:65,66.
No guard is mentioned. Mk.15:44-47; Lk.23:52-56; Jn.19:38-42.

The argument from silence doesn’t prove anything, and saying nothing about a particular event can’t possibly be contradictory to statements about said event because it has no content. Mark, Luke, and John would have to state something like “no guard was ever placed at the tomb” for this to be a real contradiction. And of course, they do no such thing. So it’s yet another pseudo-, bogus “contradiction.”

96) Only those keeping the words of Jesus will never see death. Jn.8:51.
Jesus’ disciples will be killed. Mt.24:3-9.
All men die once. Heb.9:27.

John 8:51 refers to spiritual death: that is, damnation and the punishment of hell due to rejection of Jesus and rebellion. We know this from many cross-references in John that make it clear what Jesus is referring to: eternal life as a result of repentance and being His disciple. Especially relevant is John 5:24: “. . . he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.”

Yes, some of Jesus’ disciples will be killed (meaning physical death). Since that is not what John 8:51 was talking about, no contradiction exists between the two passages, nor between John 8:51 and Hebrews 9:27, which is also pertaining to physical death. Easy solution . . .

97) Upon their arrival, the stone was still in place. Mt.28:1 2.
Upon their arrival, the stone had been removed. Mk.16:4; Lk.24:2; Jn.20:1.

98) There was an earthquake. Mt.28:2.
There was no earthquake. Mk.16:5; Lk.24:2-4; Jn.20:12.

Argument from silence, that I’ve explained several times in this series, and there are no words that would bring about a logical contradiction.

99) The visitors ran to tell the disciples. Mt.28:8.
The visitors told the eleven and all the rest. Lk.24:9.
The visitors said nothing to anyone. Mk.16:8.

Matthew and Luke are non-contradictory.  The third statement is a well-known atheist canard, but it presupposes that Mark ends with that verse. It does not. It continues on to verse 20. Mark 16:9-20 is a disputed text among many Christians. That discussion is too complex and involved to delve into here, for my purposes of rebuttal. Catholics accept the “long ending”, and the many reasons we do are explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Gospel of St. Mark” (section: “State of text and integrity”).

Protestants are divided on the issue, as they are on many issues. But (for what it’s worth) a solid and extensive case for inclusion of 16:9-20 was made by Protestant Dave Miller (“Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?,” Apologetics Press, 2005). If one accepts the arguments for the canonicity of Mark 16:9-20, then it’s consistent with the other Gospels and doesn’t contradict them. Even the words “they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid” (16:8) was only a temporary state, out of initial fear.

100) Jesus first resurrection appearance was right at the tomb. Jn.20:12-14.
Jesus first resurrection appearance was fairly near the tomb. Mt.28:8,9.
Jesus first resurrection appearance was on the road to Emmaus. Lk.24:13-16.

Mark doesn’t say one way or the other. The others don’t indicate that their account was the “first” appearance, so different harmonious chronologies are entirely possible to construct (and a “contradiction” impossible to undeniably construct). For much more on this general topic, see: How the Resurrection Narratives Fit Together (Jimmy Akin, 1-23-17).

***

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” (#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]

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

*****

51) Salvation comes by faith and not works. Eph.2:8,9; Rom.11:6; Gal.2:16; Rom.3:28.
Salvation comes by faith and works. Jms.2:14,17,20.

Salvation, in the biblical view (all the relevant and harmonious verses considered), comes by God’s grace, through faith, with works being part and parcel of the “outworking” of faith. See my papers on these topics:

Final Judgment & Works (Not Faith): 50 Passages [2-10-08]

St. Paul on Grace, Faith, & Works (50 Passages) [8-6-08]

Bible on the Nature of Saving Faith (Including Assent, Trust, Hope, Works, Obedience, and Sanctification) [1-21-10]

Salvation: By Grace Alone, Not Faith Alone or Works [2013]

Jesus vs. “Faith Alone” (Rich Young Ruler) [10-12-15]

52) The righteous have eternal life. Mt.25:46.
The righteous are barely saved. 1 Pet.4:18.

The ones who persevere in good works (as a general proposition) will have eternal life, according to the context of Matthew 25. At the same time, salvation is difficult to attain (another general proposition). No conflict here (apples and oranges).

53) Believe and be baptized to be saved. Mk.16:16.
Be baptized by water and the spirit to be saved. Jn.3:5.
Endure to the end to be saved. Mt.24:13.
Call on the name of the “Lord” to be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
Believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:31.
Believe, then all your household will be saved. Acts 16:31.
Hope and you will be saved. Rom.8:24.
Believe in the resurrection to be saved. Rom.10:9.
By grace you are saved. Eph.2:5
By grace and faith you are saved. Eph.2:8.
Have the love of truth to be saved. 2 Thes.2:10.
Mercy saves. Titus 3:5.

All of this has to be understood as a harmonious whole. All these factors work together and are aspects of the salvation process. I have dealt with these issues in #46-50 of the second installment, and in the previous two entries in this article. Baptism is also a factor in salvation, having to do with regeneration. It’s one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church, which are physical means to attain grace and salvation.

54) Backsliders are condemned. 2 Pet.2:20.
Backsliders are saved regardless. Jn.10:27-29.

Yes, it’s bad news “if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them” (2 Pet 2:20; read the entire chapter for context and completeness). John 10:27-29 doesn’t teach what it supposedly teaches, according to the above. Rather, it asserts that the elect and predestines; the one who will make it to heaven (whom Jesus knows about in His omniscience) will never be lost. It’s simply saying a=a (“those who are saved in the end are saved” or “the elect are saved” or “the predestined are saved”).

55) Forgive seventy times seven. Mt.18:22.
Forgiveness is not possible for renewed sin. Heb.6:4-6.

Yes, human beings must always be willing to forgive: to have that spirit, because all of us have been forgiven by God. But God is not obliged to forgive forever. He provides enough grace for anyone who chooses, to be saved, but if they reject it, that’s their choice, and they make forgiveness impossible to grant, because it must be preceded by acceptance and repentance. That’s what Hebrews 6 addresses: those who have received this grace and who were on the road to salvation, but then rejected it. It’s then impossible, as long as they continue rebelling and rejecting God and His grace. Many of these are simply variations on a single theme. I keep explaining the biblical theology of salvation (soteriology) over and over.

56) Divorce, except for unfaithfulness, is wrong. Mt.5:32.
Divorce for any reason is wrong. Mk.10:11,12.

See my papers:

Biblical Evidence for the Prohibition of Divorce [2004]

Dialogue on the Matthew 19:19 Exception Clause & Divorce [11-10-08]

Biblical Evidence for Annulments [2002]

Annulment is Not “Catholic Divorce” [11-17-15]

57) Jesus approved of destroying enemies. Lk.19:27.
Jesus said to love your enemies. Mt.5:44.

Luke 19:27 is a parable about the final judgment (which is God’s sole prerogative). As such it has nothing directly to do with how we should approach enemies in this life, with a loving and forgiving spirit. Apples and oranges . . .

58) God resides in heaven. Mt.5:45; Mt.6:9; Mt.7:21.
Angels reside in heaven. Mk.13:32.
Jesus is with God in heaven. Acts 7:55,56
Believers go to heaven. 1 Pet.1:3,4.
Heaven will pass away. Mt.24:35; Mk.13:31; Lk.21:33.

Matthew 24:35  refers to the present “heaven and earth” coming to an end (“heaven” there meaning the skies or the universe). Mark 13:31 and Luke 21:33 report the same saying. But there will be a new heaven and a new earth:

Revelation 21:1-2 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. [2] And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband;

The spiritual heaven and hell both last indefinitely; forever (Mt 25:46).

59) Pray that you don’t enter temptation. Mt.26:41.
Temptation is a joy. Jms.1:2.

James 1:2 refers not to temptation (hence, this is “apples and oranges” again), but to “trials”. The “joy” that comes through trials is spelled out: “the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing” (James 1:3-4). This “testing” need not be a temptation at all. I could have a rock fall on my head from an avalanche. That would be a “test” of my faith: the more severe the effects are, but it wasn’t a temptation. Temptation is allowing ourselves to fall into being led astray by sexual immorality (lust), greed, gluttony, etc. It proceeds from the inside: in our soul.

The Bible never teaches that temptation is a joy. That’s determined by a search of both words together.

60) God leads you into temptation. Mt.6:13.
God tempts no one. Jms.1:13.

This is another understandable, “respectable” objection. James 1:13 is literally true. The difficulty is interpreting Matthew 6:13, which seems to contradict it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, in commenting on this clause:

CCC 2846 This petition goes to the root of the preceding one, for our sins result from our consenting to temptation; we therefore ask our Father not to “lead” us into temptation. It is difficult to translate the Greek verb used by a single English word: the Greek means both “do not allow us to enter into temptation” and “do not let us yield to temptation.”

“Lead us not into temptation” can be understood as a poetic, rhetorical way of expressing the notion: “keep us from temptation” or “we know (in faith) that you won’t lead us into temptation.” Hence, lovers will say to each other, “don’t break my heart”: which usually means, literally, “I believe you won’t break my heart like those others have.” In other words, the literal “won’t” is changed to the rhetorical, more emotional, “don’t.” Instead of saying, “please do this [good thing]” we change it to requesting the person to “please don’t do [the opposite bad thing]”. The Old Testament (appropriately, in the poetic Psalms) offers some analogical parallels:

Psalm 38:21 Do not forsake me, O LORD! . . .

Psalm 40:11 Do not thou, O LORD, withhold thy mercy from me, let thy steadfast love and thy faithfulness ever preserve me! [both senses in one verse]

Psalm 44:23 . . . Do not cast us off for ever!

Psalm 70:5 . . . Thou art my help and my deliverer; O LORD, do not tarry! [again, both senses in one verse]

Psalm 138:8 The LORD will fulfil his purpose for me; thy steadfast love, O LORD, endures for ever. Do not forsake the work of thy hands. [third example of both senses in one verse]

Psalm 140:8 Grant not, O LORD, the desires of the wicked; do not further his evil plot!

The Psalms addressed God just as the Lord’s Prayer / “Our Father” does.

61) Take no thought for tomorrow. God will take care of you. Mt.6:25-34; Lk.12:22-31.
A man who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel. 1 Tim.5:8.

Matthew 6:25-34 (Luke as a parallel passage) is about anxiety, and how God provides our basic needs, and it’s very good, practical advice: especially “Let the day’s own trouble be sufficient for the day” (Mt 6:34). In other words: “we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it” or “one day at a time.” We can’t worry about all the “what ifs”. That will drive us crazy. It’s not a denial that we should be responsible in providing a living for ourselves and our families. “Don’t worry” is not the same thought as “don’t provide” or “don’t work and be a lazy bum.”

So it’s apples and oranges, as so many of these are. They have nothing to do with each other. It has to be the same subject matter to possibly be a contradiction. The first two passages simply don’t disagree with the third. St. Paul is quite firm about sloth and able-bodied people not working:

2 Thessalonians 3:6-12 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. [7] For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you, [8] we did not eat any one’s bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you. [9] It was not because we have not that right, but to give you in our conduct an example to imitate. [10] For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: If any one will not work, let him not eat. [11] For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work. [12] Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work in quietness and to earn their own living.

62) Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Mt.7:21.
Only those whom the Lord chooses will be saved. Acts 2:39.

This is a variation of #49, which I answered last time.

63) We are justified by works and not by faith. Mt.7:21; Rom.2:6,13; Jms.2:24.
We are justified by faith and not by works. Jn.3:16; Rom.3:27; Eph.2:8,9.; Gal.2:16.

Variation of #51 above; already answered. An error repeated doesn’t become any less false.

64) Do not take sandals (shoes) or staves. Mt.10:10.
Take only sandals (shoes) and staves. Mk.6:8,9.

Eric Lyons of Apologetics Press, offers a good reply:

The differences between Matthew and Mark are explained easily when one acknowledges that the writers used different Greek verbs to express different meanings. The word “provide” (NKJV) in Matthew 10:9 [“take” in RSV] is translated from the Greek ktesthe, which is derived from ktaomai. According to Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, in their Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, this verb means “to gain possession of, procure for oneself, acquire, get” (p. 572). Based upon these definitions, the New American Standard Version used the English verb “acquire” in Matthew 10:9 (“Do not acquire….”), instead of “provide” (as in the NKJV). Thus, according to Matthew, Jesus is saying (in essence): “Go as you are and do not take the time to go procure for yourself anything in addition to what you already have.” As Mark indicated, the apostles were to “take” (airo) what they had, and go. The apostles were not to waste precious time gathering supplies (extra apparel, staffs, shoes, etc.) or making preparations for their trip, but instead were instructed to trust in God’s providence for additional needs. Jesus did not mean for the apostles to discard the staffs and sandals they already had; rather, they were not to go and acquire more. (“Take It or Leave It”, 26 May 2004)

Several Bible translations reflect this meaning for Matthew 10:9 and ktesthe more clearly:

CSB  Don’t acquire gold, silver, or copper for your money-belts.

A. T. Robertson’s standard reference work Word Pictures in the New Testament, concurs:

It is not, “Do not possess” or “own,” but “do not acquire” or “procure” for yourselves, indirect middle aorist subjunctive. Gold, silver, brass (copper) in a descending scale (nor even bronze).

65) Jesus said that in him there was peace. Jn.16:33.
Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace. Mt.10:34; Lk.12:51.

John 16:33 refers to personal / soul level peace and fulfillment (“in me you may have peace”). He makes the meaning absolutely clear in the following similar passage:

Matthew 11:28-29 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. [29] Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

The other passages, in contrast, have to do with those in one’s family not liking the fact that one is a follower of Jesus; thereby bringing about division, which Jesus expressed with Hebraic hyperbolic exaggeration as “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Mt 10:34). In Luke 12:51, Jesus uses the literal description, “division.” It’s a social dynamic, as opposed to individual and personal. Another way of expressing the same dynamic was to say (with exaggeration of degree): “you will be hated by all for my name’s sake” (Mt 10:22).  Apples and oranges . . .

66) Jesus said that John the Baptist was a prophet and Elijah. Mt.11:9; Mt.17:12,13.
John said that he was not a prophet nor was he Elijah. Jn.1:21.

The passages in Matthew are in the sense of prototype: John the Baptist was a type of Elijah; the last prophet, who had the same role as he did: to cause Israel to repent. Luke 1:17 makes this clear. An angel says about John: “he will go before him in the spirit and power of Eli’jah”. The repeated New Testament use of “son of David” for Jesus is an instance of the same thing, because David was a prototype of the Messiah. Jeremiah proclaimed, some 400 years after David’s death: “But they shall serve the LORD their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them” (Jer 30:9; cf. 33:15; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hos 3:5).

John the Baptist himself spoke literally in John 1:21, in denying that he was Elijah, returned from the dead. Since we have instances of metaphorical and literal, it’s no contradiction.

67) Jesus said that he was meek and lowly. Mt.11:29.
Jesus makes whips and drives the moneychangers out from the temple. Mt. 21:12; Mk.11:15,16; Jn.2:15.

Jesus was meek and lowly and humble. It doesn’t follow, however, that He can never express righteous indignation. The most “meek and mild” father will become a roaring lion if someone tries to kidnap his son or daughter. And this is entirely proper. Likewise, if a judge gives a life sentence to a proven-guilty murderer, we don’t say that the judge failed to be personally “meek and mild.” He was doing his duty and protecting society.

Likewise, Jesus (Who was God) was disgusted that money-grubbing merchants had turned the temple into “a den of robbers” (Mt 21:13). It was a time for righteous indignation and God’s wrath, and Jesus acted accordingly. For more details as to what exactly these merchants were doing, that made Jesus so rightfully angry, see my paper, David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #10: Chapter 11 (Two Donkeys? / Fig Tree / Moneychangers) [8-20-19]. Dr. David Madison is also one who loves to try to pick apart the Bible. He asked: “What provoked Jesus to do this? Why was he upset about money-changers and dove-sellers?” I provided a thorough answer in this article of mine.  I think what these moneychangers were doing would disgust anyone who has a caring, compassionate concern for the poor being treated fairly and not being taken advantage of for monetary gain: and in a holy place at that.

68) Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees”. Lk.12:1.
Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees”. Mt.16:6,11.
Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod”. Mk.8:15.

Sure: they were all being hypocrites. It’s not a “contradiction” to point out that more than one person or group can act like hypocrites and bad influences. This is a rather silly example of a supposed biblical “problem.” Jesus used “leaven” as a synonym for hypocrisy. This isn’t speculation. He expressly said so:

Luke 12:1-3 In the meantime, when so many thousands of the multitude had gathered together that they trod upon one another, he began to say to his disciples first, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. [2] Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. [3] Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

For much more on this, see my paper, “Leaven” of the Pharisees: Hypocrisy or False Doctrine? (11-3-11).

69) Jesus founds his church on Peter. Mt.16:18.
Jesus calls Peter “Satan” and a hindrance. Mt.16:23.

To the first passage: yes He did. The second is about something different. Being the leader of the Church doesn’t mean Peter is perfect at all times. In the second passage, Jesus was saying that He would “go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised” (16:21). Peter responded by saying, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you” (16:22).

Jesus then rebukes him, because his advice, if followed, would ruin God’s predetermined plan for how to save the human race: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men” (16:23). It was a graphic way of expressing the idea that Satan was speaking through Peter; unduly influencing him. It was a rebuke about this one thing: not a total character appraisal. Peter was quite well-intentioned, but ignorant about the fact (as all the disciples seemed to be at first) that Jesus had to die to redeem mankind. In any event, that has no bearing on his status as leader of the Church. That’s made very clear in Scripture. See my paper, 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy [1994].

70) The mother of James and John asks Jesus to favor her sons. Mt.20:20,21.
They ask for themselves. Mk.10:35-37.

Why can’t both ask the same thing? This is ridiculous and deserves no further attention.

71) Jesus responds that this favor is not his to give. Mt.20:23; Mk.10:40.
Jesus said that all authority is given to him. Mt.28:18; Jn.3:35.

In some things Jesus freely “defers” to the Father. It’s part of the voluntary limitation of becoming a man. The “classic” passage related to this is in Philippians:

Philippians 2:6-8 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, [7] but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. [8] And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

Jesus is both fully God and fully man (agree or disagree, or understand or not, this is Christian and biblical teaching). As a man, and the Son in the Holy Trinity, at times He submits to (or seems “lesser” than) God the Father. But in His Divine Nature He is every bit the equal of God the Father, and can and does say things like, “All that the Father has is mine” (Jn 16:15) or “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30) and this extraordinary utterance:

John 5:21-23 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. [22] The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, [23] that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

All of this backdrop explains the first two passages above. The second couplet expresses His equality with the Father in the Holy Trinity (“the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand”: Jn 3:35 / “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”: Mt 28:18). It’s not contradictory; it’s the Two Natures of Christ or what theologians call the Hypostatic Union.

72) Jesus heals two unnamed blind men. Mt.20:29,30.
Jesus heals one named blind man. Mk.10:46-52.

I tend to believe in an instance like this that there were two similar traditions in existence about one event (just as eyewitnesses in a court trial will differ on some details): one of them had one blind man and the other had two. But as far as contradictoriness goes, what we know about this incident doesn’t establish it. The Domain for Truth website provided some good insight on the nature of a logical contradiction:

1. Formally the two claims “Only one blind man was healed near Jericho” and “Only two blind man was healed near Jericho” are contradictory.  There can’t be “only one blind man” while there’s “two blind men.”  But the next question is whether the Bible verses cited actually supply those two claims.
2. Matthew 20:30 does mention two blind men.
3. Both Mark 10:46 and Luke 18:35 mention one blind man.  But neither of those passages assert that there was “only one blind man.”  Thus the claim that there’s “Only one blind man was healed near Jericho” is not supported by the text. If it’s not there in the Scriptures one cannot claim there’s a Bible contradiction here.
4. Mentioning “a man” is not the same thing as saying there’s “only one man.”  “A man” and “two men” are not contradictory; it is logically possible that “a man” would be from one of those “two men.”  Logically, “a man” is a subset of “two men” and hence are not contradictory. (“Bible Contradiction? How many blind men were healed near Jericho?”, 10-4-18)

73) Jesus healed all that were sick. Mt.8:16; Lk.4:40.
Jesus healed many that were sick – but not all. Mk.1:34.

All these accounts refer to the same incident, and so at first glance it seems contradictory. But several things need to be taken into consideration. Mark 1:34 records that “he healed many”. There could be several reasons for this qualification, but the most likely — in context –, is because of the sheer numbers of people: “And the whole city was gathered together about the door” (Mk 1:33). This was in Capernaum (Mk 1:21), which had an estimated population of 1,500 at that time.

So let’s say that 10% of all these people needed to be healed of something (which is 150), and let’s assume Jesus spent five minutes with each one. That would add up to 750 minutes or twelve-and-a-half hours. It’s not physically possible that He could heal all of them (because He generally touched those whom He healed). And it probably wasn’t just people in Capernaum, either. Mark 1:28 states that “at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee.” There were two towns fairly close by. Bethsaida was six miles away and Chorazin was only two miles.

Moreover, we know from the text: “at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons” (1:32). Let’s say that sundown was 6 PM. Jesus would be healing them until 6:30 the next morning and get no sleep at all. That’s just not feasible. And so He healed “many” but not all. Even if we say He spent two minutes with each person, that would take five hours. And there very well may have been more than 150. That was just a “generous” guess (that 10% of the whole town would need healing). And sunset could have been three hours later, too, depending on the season. This was the situation: described in all three accounts: lots of people, and after sunset.

In Matthew 8:16, where it says He “healed all who were sick” it depends on what one means by “all.” I say that because two verses later we learn that that “when Jesus saw great crowds around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side [of the Sea of Galilee]” (8:18). We can be quite sure that in this crowd of people that He deliberately avoided by crossing the sea, there would have been many more asking to be healed (since they observed healing taking place). So in a very real sense, He didn’t heal absolutely all in this instance. “All” is necessarily limited in scope. In fact, He healed all that asked and were able in a crowd to get to Him before He departed to the other side of the sea.

Luke 4:40 states: “he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them” but that, too, could simply have meant “all” until such time as He left and went across the sea (as in Matthew): which simply wasn’t mentioned. Luke implies that there were “never-ending” crowds, too, in noting that “reports of him went out into every place in the surrounding region” (4:37) and (the next day) “the people sought him and came to him, and would have kept him from leaving them” (4:42), so “every one” has to have a limit at some point. In effect, then, all three passages are saying the same thing: He healed as many as He possibly could (who were able to get access to Him) before having to leave. It’s not likely that Jesus healed “absolutely every person” in such a great crowd, in one evening before the usual bed-time.

Language always has to be understood in context. Even in Mark’s account, where it is more literal and says “he healed many” it states three verses later that His disciples told Him: “Every one is searching for you” (Mk 1:37): which is non-literal language. That has to have some limit, too. It obviously can’t mean “everyone in the whole country” (or world, for that matter). Therefore, it’s obviously exaggeration, meaning, “a great number; a lot.” We talk the same way today in saying things like, “everyone likes ice cream” or “everyone loves [so-and-so] . . .”, “everyone loves a good story”, etc.

74) The council asks Jesus if he is the Son of God. Lk.22:70. The high priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ, the Son of God. Mt.26:63.
The high priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ the Son of the Blessed. Mk.14:61.
The high priest asks Jesus about his disciples and his doctrine. Jn.18:19.

All of this could have happened; no problem. Different people ask the same question; individuals ask multiple question. How is it contradictory?

75) Jesus answers to the effect of “You said it, not me”. Mt.26:64; Lk.22:70.
Jesus answers definitely, “I am”. Mk.14:62.

When Jesus said, “You have said so” (Mt 26:64), it was the same thing as replying “yes” and He proves this by what he said next: “But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” That was a claim to be the Messiah, based on Daniel 7, which He applied to Himself (hence answering the question). This resulted in the high priest and others there accusing Him of blasphemy (26:65-66). So to claim that this scenario somehow “contradicts” the “I am” of Mark is absurd. Luke is the same, since Jesus cited Daniel 7 in that account, too (without saying, “I am”), and His enemies knew exactly what He meant, since they said: “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips” (Lk 22:71).

No “difficulty” or “problem” here, then! 75 out of 75 “contradictions” have now been resolved. I’m 39% done. The weak and unsubstantial, groundless nature of these arguments is manifest to one and all. Some took much more work than others (and it always takes much more ink to refute an error than to assert one), but ultimately I’ve had no trouble answering any or all of them so far. I have no reason to believe that the remaining ones will be any more difficult to solve. These sorts of thoroughly biased efforts to attack the Bible are equal parts unfair and unreasonable. In terms of intellectual argument they amount to desperate special pleading. Something has to account for them being relentlessly wrong. I would say that the main reason is that the Bible truly is inspired revelation; hence can withstand all that the skeptics bring to bear against it.

***

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” (#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]

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

*****

26) The centurion’s servant was healed in between the cleansing of the leper and the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law. Mt.8:2-15.
The centurion’s servant was healed after the cleansing of the leper and the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law. Lu.4:38,39; 5:12,13; 7:1-10.

As I discussed last time: the StackExchange website has a page called “When was Peter’s mother-in-law healed? Chronological contradiction?”  An excellent answer was provided (posted on 12 April 2021):

My own study of the argument from order has led me to four conclusions . . .:

1. None of the Synoptic authors were trying to present the material in a strictly chronological sequence
2. Matthew principally organizes his Gospel by topic (like an encyclopedia)
3. Luke principally organizes his Gospel by geography (like an atlas)
4. Mark borrows from Matthew & Luke, sometimes following the order of one and sometimes the other (like somebody telling stories from memory) . . .

If we expect the Gospel authors to write in a 21st century style, we will be disappointed. They were not trying to present a day-by-day travel log, but a collection (from what must have been a much larger pool of material) of the teachings and sayings of Jesus they believed were most important for the audiences they had in mind . . .

The Synoptic Gospels do not present their material in the same order, because the authors never intended them to do so. [italics added]

27) The people were not impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Mk.6:52.
The people were very impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Jn.6:14.

It’s not “the people” referred to in Mark, but rather, the disciples (see 6:45, 51-52). They didn’t grasp the miracle of loaves and fish because “their hearts were hardened” (6:52). But John 6:14 refers to the crowds (“the people”) being impressed. Therefore, because it’s two different sets of people being referred to in these two passages, there is no contradiction. One wonders (after a ludicrous example like this) whether these Bible skeptics even read the passages they rush to use in these warmed-over lists of supposed “contradictions” that they churn out . . .

28) After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Gennesaret. Mk.6:53.
After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Capernaum. Jn.6:14-17.

Gennesaret is a plain on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, between Capernaum to the north and Magdala to the south. Both Mark 6 and John 6 refer to the feeding of the 5,000. In Mark’s account, Jesus and the disciples “moored to the shore” (Mk 6:53) at Gennesaret. John 6:14-17, oddly enough, never states that Jesus went to Capernaum. It says that the “disciples . . . started across the sea to Caper’na-um” (6:16-17). Jesus was walking on the water (6:19), got into the boat with them (6:21), and “immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going” (6:21).

But it doesn’t say exactly where they landed, as in Mark. I think it’s plausible to hold that the strong winds and their being “beaten by waves” (Mt 14:24; cf. Mk 6:48; Jn 6:18) blew them off course a bit, so that they landed at Gennesaret, some three miles south of Capernaum (consistent with Mark’s report).  In any event, John 6 doesn’t inform us that “Jesus went to Capernaum”. It says that the crowds sought Jesus in Capernaum (6:24) but that He wasn’t there. He was “on the other side of the sea” (6:25). Of course, He could have gone from Gennesaret to Capernaum at some undisclosed later point in time after they landed in the former plain, and John 6:59 says He was there, at the synagogue.

The parallel account in Matthew (14:22-34) verifies Mark’s specific report of the boat landing. It was windy, Jesus walked on the water (so did Peter, for a short time), they both got into the boat, which “came to land at Gennesaret” (14:34). If two sources agree on all these details and both say “the boat landed at location X” and a third agrees with them about almost all details, except the exact (unspecified) landing location, it is perfectly sensible to assume that the boat did indeed land at location X. To deny it based on the third source is merely the ineffectual argument from silence again.

In any event, I see no contradiction here whatsoever. Whoever came up with this “contradiction” didn’t read the texts very carefully. Foiled again!

29) A demon cries out that Jesus is the Holy One of God. Mk.1:23,24.
Everyone who confesses that Jesus came in the flesh is of God. 1 Jn.4:2.

This is at least a clever and understandable one, that is worthy of an explanation. What 1 John says is generally true. He speaks mostly proverbially: meaning that it expresses general truths, that sometimes have exceptions (just as we see in the book of Proverbs). For example, he states:

1 John 3:6-9 No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. [7] Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous. [8] He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. [9] No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.

These are all proverbial and idealistic truths: “textbook” examples. What he means is that “the good, serious Christian is typified or characterized by the absence of sin, and this is the high goal of the Christian life.” But we can’t possibly interpret all of these passages absolutely literally, because we know that even very good Christians are imperfect and sin, and it doesn’t follow that it makes them automatically “of the devil” (3:8). John knows this, too, because he writes elsewhere in his epistle:

1 John 1:8-10 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. [9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [10] If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

1 John 2:1-2 My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin [the high ideal]; but if any one does sin [the frequent sad reality], we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; [2] and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Moreover, and directly to the present point, Jesus said:

Matthew 7:15-23 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. [16] You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? [17] So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. [18] A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will know them by their fruits. [21] “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. [22] On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ [23] And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

And so, in light of this, even a demon can and does state, “I know who you are, the Holy One of God” (Mk 1:24). It doesn’t follow, however, that it is a follower of Jesus. Words alone (even if true) mean little unless they are backed up by action, and demons do nothing good. It’s for this reason that Jesus rebuked the demon who said these things, by saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!” (Mk 1:25). The demon was probably expressing the truth in a mocking, blasphemous manner in the first place (as they are known to habitually do). We don’t get the tone of voice and inflection in the written words of Scripture.

30) Jesus cursed the fig tree so that it would not bear fruit. Mt.21:19; Mk.11:14.
It wasn’t time for the fig tree to bear fruit. Mk.11:13.

To note that it wasn’t the season for figs (Mk 1:13) is different from Jesus saying “May no fruit ever come from you again!” (Mt 21:19) and “May no one ever eat fruit from you again” (Mk 11:14); therefore, this is no contradiction.

31) The fig tree withers immediately, and the disciples are amazed. Mt.21:19,20.
The disciples first notice the withered tree the next day. Mk.11:20,21.

Apologetics Press offers one of their always-superb rebuttals:

The fact of the matter is, the gospel writers never claimed to have recorded all of the events of Jesus’ life in the exact order in which they occurred. Unless an action or event is denoted by a specific marker (such as “the next day,” “ on the morrow,” “on the Sabbath,” etc.), there can be time gaps between the verses. . . .

In Mark, the Lord cursed the fig tree, but the account does not say when it withered. The disciples saw it withered the next day, and Peter remembered what the Lord had said. Matthew’s account says that the Lord cursed the tree, and it withered immediately, but it does not say when the disciples saw it. Matthew 21:20 merely says “And when the disciples saw it…,” with no regard to the exact time. . . . The verse in Matthew provides no time span between when it withered and when the disciples noticed.

However, Mark 11:12,19-20 does give the exact span of time between the curse and the time the disciples noticed it—one day. Since the gospels do not claim to be in exact chronological order, both Matthew and Mark offer a portion of the story. The best thing to do is to extrapolate—from both passages—exactly what happened. Both Mark 11:12 and Matthew 21:18 record that Jesus was hungry, and both recount how He approached a fig tree and, finding no figs, cursed it. Matthew then records that it withered immediately (21:19), and Mark records that the disciples heard Jesus curse the tree, but he does not say whether or not they noticed the tree withered at that time (11:14). Mark then continues the narrative of Jesus cleansing the temple in Jerusalem (11:15-19). Both writers then recount the astonishment of the disciples at seeing the fig tree withered, with Mark designating it as the next day (11:20-21) and Matthew not specifying how much time passed between 21:19 and 21:20. (26 May 2004)

32) Jesus is the mediator of the “Father”. 1 Tim.2:5; 1 Jn.2:1.
Jesus sits on “his” right hand. Mk. 16:19.

I’m afraid I don’t have the slightest idea what is thought to be contradictory here. If I did, I would offer some sort of resolution. There is no conflict here that I can discern.

33) There is one “God”. 1 Tim.2:5; Jms.2:19.
There are three. 1 Jn.5:7.

Indeed, there is one God. The “traditional” 1 John 5:7 is a verse that isn’t in the earliest manuscripts, so those who place a high priority on accurate manuscripts say that it’s simply not part of the biblical canon (therefore, not inspired). But let’s accept the view that it is in the Bible for the sake of argument. Here is the KJV version of the disputed verse:

1 John 5:7 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This doesn’t state that there are three gods. It says that there are three [implied, Persons] and that “these three are one” [implied, God]. The Holy Trinity is the belief  that the one God subsists in three persons (trinitarian monotheism), not that there are three gods (tri-theism).

For hundreds of biblical arguments for the Holy Trinity, see my papers:

Jesus is God: Hundreds of Biblical Proofs (RSV edition) [1982; rev. 2012]

Holy Trinity: Hundreds of Biblical Proofs (RSV edition) [1982; rev. 2012]

34) Jesus said to honor your father and mother. Mt.15:4; Mt.19:19; Mk.7:10; Mk.10:19; Lk.18:20.
Jesus said that he came to set people against their parents. Mt.10:35-37; Lk.12:51-53; Lk.14:26.
Jesus said to call no man father. Mt.23:9.

I’ve dealt with the falsely alleged “contradiction” between the first two propositions above:

Dr. David Madison vs. Jesus #1: Hating One’s Family? [8-1-19]

Madison vs. Jesus #5: Cultlike Forsaking of Family? [8-5-19]

Did Jesus Teach His Disciples to Hate Their Families? [National Catholic Register, 8-17-19]

And I have disposed of the notorious “call no man father” issue:

Biblical Evidence Regarding Calling Priests “Father” [2-24-16]

35) Jesus/God said, “You fool…”. Lk.12:20; Mt.23:17.
Paul calls people fools. 1 Cor.15:36.
Call someone a fool and you go to hell. Mt.5:22.

I’ve already addressed this issue as well:

Did Paul and Peter Disobey Jesus and Risk Hellfire (Calling Folks “Fools”)? Did Jesus Contradict Himself? Or Do Proverbs and Hyperbolic Utterances Allow Exceptions? [2-5-14]

On [Not?] Calling People “Fools”: Biblical Reflections [10-13-17]

36) Anger by itself is a sin. Mt.5:22.
But not necessarily. Eph.4:26.

Matthew 5:22 is a proverbial-type utterances, which by nature allows of exceptions. The exception is precisely shown in Ephesians 4:26: “Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger,”. If it’s possible to be angry without sin, as this passage proves, then we can’t possibly make a blanket statement that all anger is sin, period. Matthew is not asserting that because Jesus is uttering a proverb. But Paul in Ephesians is being literal. Therefore, no contradiction is in play. Keep trying, guys! Give it the ol’ college try . . .

37) Ask and it shall be given. Seek and you will find. Knock and it will be opened to you. Mt.7:7,8; Lk.11:9,10.
Ask and you shall be refused. Seek and you won’t find. Knock and you will be refused entrance. Lk.13:24-27.

The first statement provides utterances from Jesus that are general, proverbial truths, that are qualified elsewhere in Scripture, in literal passages. For example: “You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions” (Jas 4:3); “if we ask anything according to his will he hears us” (1 Jn 5:14).

Luke 13:24-27 is very different, and is specifically about those who are reprobate or damned. They had every chance to repent during their lives and be saved, but now it is too late; it’s time to be judged; so at that point they can’t seek any more; “the game’s up.”

No conflict here. It’s apples and oranges again.

38) Do not judge. Mt.7:1,2.
Unless it is necessary, of course. 1 Jn.4:1-3.

Again, we have the proverbial statement, that allows exceptions, in Matthew 7:1-2. Matthew’s expressing a sort of “reverse golden rule.” If we judge harshly, unfairly, uncharitably, then chances are such judgment will come back to us at some point. It doesn’t follow that no one can ever rightly judge, ever. 1 John 4:1-3 is actually about spiritual discernment, so it’s a non sequitur and no contradiction by the same token. But there are many verses about rightful, non-sinful judging:

Luke 11:19 And if I cast out demons by Be-el’zebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.

Luke 11:31-32 The queen of the South will arise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. [32] The men of Nin’eveh will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

Luke 12:57 And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?

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.

John 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.

1 Corinthians 10:15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say.

1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge for yourselves; . . .

39) Jesus is thankful that some things are hidden. Mt.11:25; Mk.4:11,12.
Jesus said that all things should be made known. Mk.4:22.

In Matthew 11:25 Jesus states: “”I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes;”. Mark 4:11-12 is about Jesus’ use of parables. He deliberately used them, knowing that those who don’t want to know the truth won’t grasp them. The He sarcastically decries the notion of their freely chosen obstinacy: “that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven” (Mk 4:12).

In Mark 4:22 Jesus teaches that the state of affairs just described will not be permanent; that one day “there is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light.” Thus a temporary, limited “hiddenness” isn’t contrary to the idea that things won’t always be this way.

40) Jesus said that no sign would be given. Mk.8:12.
Jesus said that no sign would be given except for that of Jonas. Mt.12:39; Lk.11:29.
Jesus showed many signs. Jn.20:30; Acts 2:22.

The difference (not a contradiction) has to do with willingness to believe vs. unwillingness. Jesus knew who would accept His signs and miracles and who would not. With people who did not and would not (usually the “scribes and Pharisees”), He refused to do miracles and signs. This is made clear in the Bible:

Mark 8:11-12 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, to test him. [12] And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation.”

Matthew 12:39 But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” (cf. 16:4)

In Jesus’ story of Lazarus and the rich man, He explains why sometimes it does no good to perform miracles:

Luke 16:27-31 And he said, `Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house, [28] for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ [29] But Abraham said, `They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ [30] And he said, `No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ [31] He said to him, `If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.’”

This also, of course, foretold the widespread rejection of the miracle of His own Resurrection. Belief or willingness to accept the evidence of a miracle is also tied to Jesus’ willingness to do miracles:

Matthew 13:58 And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.

With the common folk, it was entirely different, and so we also see a verse like John 6:2 (“And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased.”). Because the atheist hyper-critic refuses to acknowledge or understand these simple distinctions, all of a sudden we have yet another trumped-up, so-called contradiction where there is none at all. E for [futile] effort, though . . .

41) Jesus stated that the law was until heaven and earth ended. Mt. 5:17-19.
Jesus stated that the law was only until the time of John. Lk.16:16.

Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. [18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void.

Where’s the contradiction? This is a classic case of the skeptic not even reading the very next verse in order to grasp the proper context.

42) The “Sermon on the Mount” took place on the mountain. Mt.5:1.
The “Sermon on the Mount” took place on a plain. Lu.6:17.

Matthew 5:1-2 Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down his disciples came to him. [2] And he opened his mouth and taught them, . . . (cf. 8:1)

Luke 6:12-13, 17 In these days he went out to the mountain to pray; and all night he continued in prayer to God. [13] And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, . . . [17] And he came down with them and stood on a level place, with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon, who came to hear him and to be healed of their diseases;

Before I visited Israel in 2014, I used to say that Jesus preached from a mountain that had a flat top. Now that I have been to the place where the sermon was preached, I can report that both things are true (but in a different manner). Note that Matthew 5:1 doesn’t state “on the top of the mountain.” A little ways up from the water and base of the hill, there is a flat area. So He preached from the plain or “level place”. But it’s also “on the mount” as well (since if one is part of the way up a mountainside, we still say he is “on the mountain”). One can see a photograph confirming this in an article about the Sermon on the Mount. The general topography of the area is confirmed, for example, by the article on “Palestine” in The Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1859 (Vol. 17, p. 182):

It is one peculiarity of the Galilean hills, as distinct from those of Ephraim and Judah, that they contain or sustain green basins of table-land just below their topmost ridges. (Stanley.)

Again: Jesus didn’t preach this sermon on top of a mountain. He preached it from halfway down the mountain, with His hearers above Him, in a “natural amphitheater.” Now that I’ve seen it with my own eyes, it makes perfect sense. Sound projects upwards and is “caught” by the amphitheater shape (precisely why the ancient Greeks and others used that shape). Our guide n Israel said that he has visited the Church of the Beatitudes at night with no one around, and could clearly hear fishermen talking down by the sea.

This is confirmed also by textual evidence in the New Testament. Jesus is described at least once as being in the water and teaching from the boat (Lk 5:3). I think it’s fairly clear that He was utilizing the same acoustic principle when He did that. The Sea of Galilee is ringed by pretty high hills all the way around.

My tour group later tested the theory in a similar “amphitheater” location where Jesus fed the 4,000 (across the Sea of Galilee; on its east shore). It was absolutely correct: we could hear each other — talking fairly softly, to test it — perfectly from bottom-to-top and vice versa.

43) The “Lord’s Prayer” was taught to many during the “Sermon on the Mount”. Mt.6:9.
The “Lord’s Prayer” was taught only to the disciples at another time. Lu.11:1.

It looks like Jesus simply repeated the prayer (no law against that!): seeing what importance it would have in the history of the Church, as the collective Christian prayer: the most well-known of all. Repetition is a great teacher. In Luke, He taught it to His disciples in a shorter version. Then He expanded the prayer and taught it to the “crowds” (5:1; 7:28) in the Sermon on the Mount. None of this is implausible or unlikely to the slightest degree, and it certainly isn’t a “contradiction.”

44) Jesus had his own house. Mk.2:15.
Jesus did not have his own house. Lu.9:58.

The verse is a bit ambiguous as to whose house is referred to. Cross-reference Luke 5:29, however, in the midst of reporting the same story, asserts that it was definitely  Levi‘s (i.e., Matthew’s) house: “And Levi made him a great feast in his house; and there was a large company of tax collectors and others sitting at table with them” (Lk 5:29). On the other hand, Mark 2:1 states about Jesus: “And when he returned to Caper’na-um after some days, it was reported that he was at home” (cf. Mt 9:1: “his own city.”). And Matthew 4:13 adds: “he went and dwelt in Caper’na-um.” Thus, we know that Jesus lived in Capernaum for some undetermined length of time, either in His own house or in Peter’s home.

Luke 9:58 And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.”

This is more indicative of the many travels of Jesus and His disciples, whether He had a house in one place or not. He was responding to man who said, “I will follow you wherever you go” (9:57) and pointing out the sorts of hardships that would be expected. The context was: “they went on to another village. . . . they were going along the road” (9:56-57). Sometimes, no doubt, they had to sleep outside, like most travelers have had to do, when no lodging was to be had. I think this is what the passage refers to, without reference to whether He also had a house somewhere to stay. It doesn’t deny that He has a house somewhere. Therefore, no contradiction necessarily exists here.

45) Good works should be seen. Mt.5:16.
Good works should not be seen. Mt.6:1-4.

Matthew 5:16 lays out the principle that good works are good in and of themselves and are a witness to Christianity; therefore, it’s good that they are seen, so that people can “give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 6:1-4 is talking about a more specific, internal thing: the mentality of pridefulness and doing works not simply because it is the right thing to do, but “in order to be seen” (6:1); in other words, an outlook of “look how wonderful I am, since I am doing all this good stuff. Come and praise me!” In the first scenario, the intention is to glorify God; in the second, it is one’s own inflated ego and pride.

In Matthew 6:2 Jesus gives the example of people sounding trumpets when they give alms “that they may be praised by men.” That’s what He’s talking about: pride when doing good works; being sure to be noticed and seen, out of a prideful motivation; not that good works should never be seen at all. It’s two different topics, and so it’s no contradiction.

46) Jesus said that Salvation was only for the Jews. Mt.15:24; Mt.10:5,6; Jn.4:22; Rom.11:26,27.
Paul said that salvation was also for the Gentiles. Acts 13:47,48.

This is basically a variation of what was discussed in alleged contradiction #21, in my first installment. Readers may read that reply if they wish. In a nutshell, Jesus and the disciples first concentrated on the Jews, because they were God’s chosen people, who had carried the message of His salvation for the previous 1700 or so years: since at least Abraham (and they were all Jews as well). Then the plan was for the gospel to be preached to all and sundry:

Matthew 24:14 [Jesus] And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; . . .

Matthew 28:19 [Jesus] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Acts 10:34-35 And Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, [35] but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

Romans 2:9-16 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. [11] For God shows no partiality. [12] All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. [13] 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.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord . . . is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

47) Repentance is necessary. Acts 3:19; Lu.3:3.
Repentance is not necessary. Rom.11:29.

Of course it’s necessary. Romans 11:29 has nothing to do with repentance. It simply states: “For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” This alleged “contradiction seems to have antinomianism in its thinking: the notion that once you are saved, you can do anything and it’s fine and dandy: no need for continuous sanctification and good works (or an extreme “faith alone / eternal security” view). This isn’t true. The Bible (and Paul) teach sanctification and the necessity of good works all through the Christian life.

St. Paul in Scripture refers to repentance ten times (see a list: passages from Acts 13:24 to 2 Tim 2:25). He refers to sanctification twelve times, and to holiness eight times. All of this requires repeated repentance, because we fail and fall and have to be restored to a right relationship with God through repentance. Confession of sins (after one becomes a Christian) is also referred to in James 5:16 and 1 John 1:9. That is part and parcel with repentance as well.

48) Non-believers obtain mercy. Rom.11:32.
Only believers obtain mercy. Jn.3:36; Rom.14:23.
Only baptized believers obtain mercy. Mk.16:16.
Mercy cannot be predetermined. Rom.9:18.

John 3:36 doesn’t say this at all. It states: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.” The Bible doesn’t teach universal salvation to all, regardless of how they act. We all have free will to accept or reject God’s free gift of mercy, grace, and salvation. Some people reject that, but it isn’t due to a lack of God’s mercy. They refuse to repent and to follow God’s guidance. They would rather rebel against Him. The famous “gospel” passage John 3:16 laid out God’s free gift:

John 3:16-18 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] 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.

Romans 14:23 is about conscience (the whole chapter is about that) and proper foods to eat and has nothing to do with mercy. It’s a non sequitur in this discussion.

Mark 16:16 reiterates the teaching of John 3. One who refuses to believe in Jesus and Christianity — who deliberately rejects it, knowing full well what it is — cannot be saved. This doesn’t deny God’s mercy, which is always there for everyone. But they must reform their sinful ways and repent. God being merciful doesn’t mean that He saves everyone whatsoever, regardless of what they do. We have to repent and cooperate with Hi grace. We want what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called “cheap grace” without cost or responsibility. And this alleged “contradiction” exhibits that stunted mentality.

Romans 9 is a complex and poorly understood chapter. See my article, Romans 9: Plausible Non-Calvinist Interpretation [4-22-10].

None of this proves that there are contradictory teachings in Scripture regarding God’s mercy. That teaching is crystal-clear:

Psalm 103:2-4, 8 Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits, [3] who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, [4] who redeems your life from the Pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy, . . . [8]The LORD is merciful and gracious, . . .

Psalm 116:5 Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; our God is merciful.

Luke 6:36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Acts 10:43 To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.

Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace (cf. Col 1:14; 2:13; 3:13)

Ephesians 2:4 . . . God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us,

49) All who call on the “Lord” will be saved. Rom.10:13; Acts 2:21.
Only those predestined will be saved. Acts 13:48; Eph.1:4,5; 2 Thes.2:13; Acts 2:47.

Predestination is very deep theological waters: perhaps among the two or three most misunderstood and mysterious aspects of theology. The unbeliever will never grasp it, according to 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.”

It is true that most Christians believe that those who are saved were predestined to be saved: but that’s because we believe that God knows all things and is outside of time. He knows, therefore, who will exercise their free will, soaked in His grace, and receive His mercy, grace, and salvation (see #47-48 above). In other words, none of this is without their free will cooperation. This cooperation with God’s grace (and with His predestination) is seen in the following passages:

Romans 15:17-18  In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. [18] For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed,

1 Corinthians 15:10  But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

1 Corinthians 15:57-58  But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. [58] Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God — [9] not because of works, lest any man should boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Philippians 2:13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

1 Peter 4:10 As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace:

Once all of these things are understood, it is seen that there are no contradictions. God predestines us, but He does so knowing that we would cooperate in our free will (that He gave us) with His grace and do our part of the equation. Many Christians misunderstand this, so (again) I don’t expect many unbelievers to grasp it. It’s too deep and complex, and spiritually discerned.

50) Jesus said he would not cast aside any that come to him. Jn.6:37.
Jesus said that many that come to him will be cast aside. Mt.7:21-23.

This is a variation of what has been dealt with at some length in #46-49 above. In John 6:37, Jesus refers to “All that the Father gives me will come to me”: in other words, this refers to predestination and election, which is in conjunction with our free will acceptance, repentance, and cooperation. The latter part of the verse is conditional upon this prerequisite. These are the ones who will be saved in the final analysis and go to haven. Jesus (being God and therefore omniscient) knows this, so of course He won’t cast them out. Christianity doesn’t teach universalism (all are saved); it teaches universal atonement (God’s mercy and grace are available for all who repent and accept them as a free gift, and continually cooperate through good works and sanctification).

Matthew 7:21-23 refers to false, deceitful supposed “followers” of Christ who really aren’t. They haven’t repented and allowed God to transform them in grace, and so they simply mouth the words, “Lord, Lord” and “Jesus.” They “talk the talk but don’t walk the walk” as we Christians say. But God knows His own (Jn 10:14) and He knows who is faking it. God knows men’s hearts. We can’t fool Him with our games and pretensions and outrageous hypocrisies. That’s what this is about. The biblical teaching is that Jesus accepts all who are sincerely repentant and willing to follow Him as disciples, and who persevere and don’t fall away till the end.

So again, one must understand the biblical teaching on grace and salvation. Once they do, they see that these sorts of supposedly contradictory couplets aren’t “contradictions” at all. They are misguided, uninformed false speculations, exhibiting an ignorance of the teaching of the Bible. Atheists are no experts on the Bible or Christian theology (carefully developed over nearly 2,000 years)! Believe me, I know this firsthand, having debated them hundreds of times, and usually about the content of the Bible. On the whole, they are exceedingly ignorant (many having been former fundamentalist Christians, and insufficiently “catechized”), and that lack of knowledge is fully manifest in lists such as this one that I am refuting one-by-one (and having little trouble doing it: the only “difficulty” at all is the necessary tedium and labor entailed to refute error).

***

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.