HOW TO HANDLE ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS

INTRODUCTION

• If something seems to be contradictory, it is not.  An explanation can always be found.  "For God is not the author of confusion ..." (1 Cor 14:33). Start by believing God!
• "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition... " (Mark 7:13) is one way confusion creeps in, namely listening to people and there ideas, instead of seeing what the Word of God actually says.
• Not all events occur in the same "instant" of time, so two accounts of the same set of events need to be "woven" together, not overlapped, to form continuity.
• Details in one account that another account is missing can be "woven" together to provide the complete set of details into a single accounting. 
• A great many times what one gospel says may not agree with another gospel, and this is because one account is rather literal and the other is the gist of the same event.  This is particularly true if after the word in Greek for say/said/saying is followed by the Greek word "oti" which means "something like" in the context of a quoting someone or especially multiple people. This is how the Greek deals with literal quotes versus only the gist of what was said. 
• Any postulation to show text(s) do not have contradiction(s) should not leave any unresolved issues and should not contradict any other part of the Bible. Postulations should be used rarely.
• Be alert to alleged contradictions that are the result of "cherry picking", that is, the allegation does not consider the surrounding texts, and even the rest of the Bible.
• One must ignore the "traditions of men" (Palm Sunday, Good Friday and nativity stories, for example).  Instead, look at the Bible texts with a "fresh look".
• Be thorough in reading, as the simplest detail, even a single word, could resolve the alleged contradiction.
• It is a good idea to bring in historical facts (not conjectures) to provide additional evidence to support the lack of a contradiction, but care must be taken when the so-called "facts" contradict any part of the Word of God, that is, the Word of God is always truthful; "facts" are not always.
  

AFTER JESUS' BIRTH, JOSEPH AND MARY SEEM TO GO TWO PLACES AT THE SAME TIME: BOTH TO EGYPT AND BACK TO NAZARETH

1. only the shepherds are present at Jesus' birth, not the "wise men"
2. Joseph and Mary did return to Nazareth via Jerusalem (after her purification ritual)
3. some time later, probably within a few months, but possibly even a year or more later, they return to Bethlehem, where the "wise men" visit them and provide the gifts
4. after the warning in the dream, Joseph takes Mary and Jesus to Egypt until the danger is over, and then they return home again to Nazareth.

1. The story of the shepherds visit is just as it is recorded (Luke 2), and Joseph and Mary's return to Nazareth via Jerusalem (Luke 2:39).
2. The shepherds saw the "babe" ("brephos") in the manger (Luke 2:16), but the "wise men" saw the "young child" ("paidion") in Matthew 2:11, clearly stating that Jesus was significantly older by the time of the visit of the "wise men".
3. The shepherds found Jesus in a manger (Luke 2:16), but the "wise men" went "into the house" (Matthew 2:11) where they saw Jesus (when the translator interprets the Greek preposition "εις " the best way, that is, uses "into", though "to" or "in" still works).
4. Joseph and Mary went to Jerusalem yearly (Luke 2:41) for the Passover celebration, and being that Bethel em was less than a day's walk and that Joseph and Mary seemed to have relatives and friends there, it is very likely that on any trip to Jerusalem for the Passover, they also paid them a visit, at which time the "wise men" visited them in Bethlehem as well (Matthew 2 account). (BTW, this account in Luke 2:41 is "far-removed" from the birth of Christ account, but is a good example of why all scripture must be reviewed to resolve issues, such as alleged contradictions, not just the immediate context.)
5. Per Matthew 2 (verses 9, 11, 13, 14, 20 & 21), Joseph and Mary did escape to Egypt, while Jesus was a "young child" and not a "babe", until it was safe to return to Nazareth.
6. The words in Matthew 2:1 say that the "wise men" came in "when Jesus was born", but the actual Greek words are "After Jesus having-been-born in Bethlehem" so Jesus had already been born by the time the "wise men" arrived, so they simply were likely not at the manger.
7. Matthew 2:1 also shows that the "wise men" arrived in Jerusalem first, not Bethlehem, after Jesus had already been born. 
8. Now such a trip for the "wise men" would have required some time to plan for, prepare for and still allow for travel time, so that it could have been months before they actually arrived, or longer if the "star" did not appear for a year later, for example. Some place their travel distance as over 9,000 miles, or about a year and half to travel that far.  Even if it were only a few days later, Mary and Joseph were not compelled to hang out in the stable with Jesus for a year or more, but likely moved on, and indeed went to Jerusalem for Mary's purification and then back to Nazareth, until they returned some time later. 
9. Herod determined most carefully when the star first appeared (Matt 2:7), and based on that, determined to kill not only newly born babies, but all under the age of 3 (Matt 2:13), which indicates that the "wise men" did indeed travel for some time from the east.

• There were 2 or maybe many "wise men", not necessarily 3, since only a plural is used to describe them, not a quantity.  There were 3 gifts listed.  The "Three Kings" story is another example of the "tradition of men" when it is told incorrectly, as it was not necessarily three kings, but maybe "a number of kings".
• The "star" was not some terrestrial event, but a true miracle, since if it were, say a comet for example, its great distance would mean it would never be directly over a house, as the optical range would have meant it stood over every house in Israel, plus with the rotation of the Earth, it would not stay anywhere very long, plus it cannot "stand" anywhere as described in Matthew 2:9.  This attempt at science rationalization is another example of "the tradition of men".
• The Bible account has the "wise men" following the star westward to Jerusalem (from the East), then to Bethel em, thus the "star" took a "left turn" south, not anything a star would do naturally.
  
• Why, if you are a Christian, do you lack the faith to believe God can perform the miracle of a light in the sky, perhaps just a hundred feet overhead, that is only called a "star" because of its appearance?  Think! Jesus walked on water, calmed a storm, healed the sick, raised the dead, and was resurrected!  It is trivial for God, then, to have a light in the sky that was best described as a "star".  But just because it looks like a star does not make it a star, just like looking at the "star" called Venus with the naked eye is not a true star, but a planet, as a "star" is actually defined as a "sun", yet it is commonly called a "star".  And further, some stars are actually whole galaxies, which the naked eye cannot observe.  So it is unreasonable to think of the "star" in this accounting has to be an actual star, but could be anything God created for the "wise men" to follow.
• The Greek word to describe Jesus when the shepherds saw Jesus in a manger (Luke 2) is "brephos" (a baby), but the Greek word to describe what the "wise men" saw (Matthew 2) is "paidion" (a young child).  So the "wise men" definitely saw Jesus at quite some time after He had been born.
• Some translate Matthew 2:1 as "Now when Jesus was born" but others translate it as "After Jesus was born" with respect to when the wise men came. The word "after" implies  hours, days or even months passed since Jesus' birth.  As for the Greek, the word "de" in this verse is a conjunction that can be used as either "now" or "after."  Using "after" works simply because it is consistent with other texts that show Jesus was a young child, not a baby, when the wise men showed up.
  

DID JESUS RIDE INTO JERUSALEM ON ONE OR TWO ANIMALS?

1. Six days before the Passover (John 12:1), Jesus and His disciples ate super with Lazarus, Martha and Mary 
2. five days before the Passover (John 12:12-15), Jesus rode into Jerusalem, on a single colt, Jesus' disciples at His side, probably a semi-private visit to Jerusalem, and only looked around in the Temple (Mark 11:11) (without casting out the money changers) and afterwards went to Bethany to spend the night (Mark 11:11)
3. the next day (Mark 11:12), Jesus went to the temple again, and cast out the money changers (Mark 11:15)
4. Jesus and the disciples left Jerusalem for the night, yet again (Mark 11:19)
5. two days before the Passover, the chief priests and scribes plot how they might have Him put to death (Mark 14:1).

• Luke 19:28-48 concurs with the first day events of Mark 11:1-11, with respect to entering Jerusalem on a single ass, including some people praising Jesus
• Matthew 21:1-12 describes the second day entry into Jerusalem, but this time both a colt and an ass are used, and this passage also concurs with Mark 11:12-18.

1. Some may say that John 12:14 contradicts the account that the disciples obtained the young ass/colt from a nearby village when it says Jesus "found" the colt, but it depends on the meaning of "found". It turns out that the Greek word used for "found" also means "obtained".  So indeed, it fits the scenario where Jesus' disciples had obtained the animal on His behalf. And furthermore, the dictionary includes in its definition of "found" the word "obtained".
2. The above represents not trying to overlap events, but rather weaving them into a timeline, where Jesus rode in on Thursday and Friday, before Passover that started Tuesday evening, day per the accounting of Crucifixion Week.
   

DID THE TRAVELERS WITH PAUL HEAR OR NOT HEAR WHAT PAUL HEARD AT HIS CONVERSION?

1. Paul heard Jesus calling him (Acts 22:7 & Acts 9:4)
2. his companions saw a light, but did not hear what was being said (Acts 22:9 only)
3. Paul is told to go to Damascus for further instructions (Acts 22:10 & Acts 9:6)
4. his companions heard what was said this time, but did not see anybody (Acts 9:7 only)
5. his companions took Paul to Damascus, leading him by the hand (Acts 22:11 & Acts 9:8)

DID THE COCK CROW ONCE OR TWICE WHEN PETER DENIED CHRIST?

1. outside of the main level hall of the palace, Paul denies Christ 3 times before a cock/rooster ever crew at all that night
2. then sometime later, below the main level of the palace, Paul denies Christ again, 3 times, before a cock/rooster crowed 2 times.

• First, Jesus confronts Peter:
• Luke and John wrote that while at the last supper, that Jesus said that before the cock would crow even once, Peter would deny Him 3 times
• Matthew wrote that while at the Mount of Olives (after the supper), Peter was told by Jesus that he would deny Him 3 times before the cock would crow
• Mark wrote that while at the Mount of Olives (also after supper), Peter was also told by Jesus, a second time, that he would deny Him 3 times before the cock would crow 2 times. 
• (Its as if Jesus said at the Mount of Olives, "You will deny me 3 times before the cock ever crows" and then a little later, "You will also deny me 3 more times before the cock crows 2 more times, yet again." Of course we do not know the exact words, other than those in scripture, but this fits as a real possibility.)
• Then, the events actually unfold later that night:
• Matthew, Luke and John recorded that while on the main level of the palace, Peter did deny Him 3 times before the cock crew, even once.
• Mark recorded that while below the main level of the palace, Peter did deny Him 3 times before the cock crew 2 times.
  

1. Of course it is very easy for some to say that the two sets of denials were one event and thus a contradiction. But just saying it does not make it so. 
2. Its just as easy to say there were two sets of denials, especially since the evidence supports that two locations are given for each set of denials, and because Peter's actions were that of retreating, again and again until he retreated to below the main level, where the second set of denials occurred, and he retreated even further away.
3. Furthermore, the two sets of denials in no way contradict the scriptures when the two accounts are chronology woven together, instead of being overlaid, and when there is no other scripture to contradict these two sets of events
4. The predictions by Jesus both at the "last supper" and in the Mount of Olives, is a good example of how different accounts provide differing details, but details, nonetheless, that do not contradict each other, simply because both sets of predictions occurred, and God simply did not inspire some of the writers to record both accounts fully
5. The above point also applies to the actual set of events pertaining to Peter's two different times of denying Christ, each three times.  It is a "weave" of the accountings into a complete chronological accounting.