I ran upon some things in the bible that contradicted one another. I'm wondering if someone can refute, and or show me where I'm going wrong in these contradictions. If you're able to give references please do.

Is it okay to marry unbelievers?

Yes 1st Corinthians 7:12-14
No 2 Corinthians 6:14-17

Is there an unforgiveable sin?

Yes Matthews 12:31-32, Mark 3: 29, Luke 12:10
Not Acts 13:39

Did Jesus say he would "destroy the temple and build it again in three days?"
Yes John 2:19-21
No Matthew 26:59-61, Mark 14:57-58

Where did Jesus tell his disciples to go after his resurrection
Go to Galilee- Matthew 28:10, Mark 16:17
Stay in Jerusalem: Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4

Was Jesus the son of David?
Yes- Acts 2:30, Acts 13:23, Romans 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:8 Rev 22:16
no- Matthew 22:45 Mark 12:35-37

Was Jesus all powerful
Yes- Matthew 28:18
No Matthew 20:23, Mark 6:5

Also Mark and John have differing accounts of when Jesus threw out the money changers.
Mark and John have differing accounts of when Jesus dies
Mark and John have differing accounts of the last supper
Matthew and Luke have differing accounts of where Jesus was born

The only account of a census at that time where you have to return to your ancestors from 1000 years before the birthplace is in Luke. Roman census were well documented, non like that ever occured. If the gospels are correct that Jesus was born during Herod's reign then Luke can no also be right that it happened when Quiinus was Governor of Syrian 6 AD Herod died in 4 BC.

I will have to get to the rest later. Hope this helps.

Edited to add link to bottom question and additional answers.

1 Corinthians 7:12-14 is talking about people that are already married and one of them becomes a believer. I'll try to get to the others in a little while.

The unforgivable sin is claiming that Jesus did not perform his miracles by the Holy Spirit, but by satan. As a believer in Christ it would be impossible to commit this sin.
The question I have is if a nonbeliever said it and then became a believer, would they be forgiven?  
ETA: some say that people have to hold that belief until they are dead for it not to be forgiven. Doesn't really make sense because they obviously were never saved and don't claim Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Keep in mind that Jesus was responding to the Pharisees claiming that he was driving out demons by the power of Beelzebub when he made the statement about the unforgivable sin. There may be something there that we don't exactly see, that someone in that time period would have.

This is a very trivial verse, but I don't worry about it much.

Well stated.
But for literal clarity, well examined.

Jesus, according to the bible, cleared the temple 2 different times.

"Jesus’ first cleansing of the temple is described in John 2:11-12 as having occurred just after Jesus’ first miracle, the turning of water into wine at the wedding in Cana. John makes it clear that it was “after this” that He went to Capernaum, where He “stayed for a few days.” Then in the next verse (v. 13), John tells us that the “Passover of the Jews was at hand” (NKJV). These verses trace Jesus’ movement over a short period of time from Cana in Galilee to Capernaum and eventually to Jerusalem for the Passover. This is the first of the two times Jesus cleansed the temple. The synoptic Gospels do not record the temple cleansing mentioned in John 2, instead only recording the temple cleansing that occured during Passion Week.

The second cleansing of the temple occurred just after Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem the last week of His life. This second cleansing is recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke, but not in John. There are differences in the two events, aside from their being nearly three years apart. In the first cleansing, temple officials confronted Jesus immediately (John 2:18), whereas in the second cleansing, the chief priests and scribes confronted Him the following day (Matthew 21:17-23). In the first event, Jesus made a whip of cords with which to drive out the sellers, but there is no mention of a whip in the second cleansing. So there are two recorded occasions when Jesus cleansed the temple—the first time at the beginning of His public ministry, and the second time just after His triumphal entry into Jerusalem shortly before He was crucified."

http://www.josh.org/resources/study-research/answers-to-skeptics-questions/dont-the-gospels-give-contradictory-reports-as-to-the-time-christ-was-crucified/

This may help explain about the time Jesus died.

Looks like others have corrected your exegesis, as to where you are going wrong, it seems to be based in what appears to be an intent to misinterpret Scripture

Now, now. Let's take the OP's questions at face value unless other intentions make themselves clear. These are legitimate questions that we should provide an answer for.

Thank you. I believe they are legitimate questions. I will go over more on the rebuttal to my questions over the weekend. I've been so busy, I haven't been able to do any reading. However I do appreciate the responses and I'm looking forward going over them. However I have more contradictions that I've found and since you guys have been more then happy to answer I will put them down for you guys to rebut.

Difference in Matthews v John in Matthews not a word about Jesus being God, however in John Jesus was God since the beginning.

In Matthew Jesus teaches about coming of kingdom of God and never about his divine nature, in John teaches almost exclusively about his divinity

In Matthew Jesus refuses to perform miracles to prove his identity, however in John Almost the only reason he performs miracles (signs) is to prove his divinity.

As for the authors of the bible I'm wondering if you could answer theses. None of the books are first person accounts the titles aren't even original. The Gospels titles were added by later church fathers. No books from the time were titled "according to" Take for example Matthew it reads in 3rd person  it says "He" not "I" & refers to Jesus and Apostles as "they" not "we"

Of the 27 books of the the NT only 8 are almost certainly written by who they're accredited to.

http://www.jesus.org/is-jesus-god/the-gospels/four-gospels-four-audiences.html

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/273-examining-the-four-gospels

http://www.gotquestions.org/four-Gospels.html


Here's a few websites that may help with the understanding of the four gospels.

Which book are you getting all this from? I seem to remember a certain author making all of these claims on a national tv show recently. I know there are plenty of scholarly refutations circulating out there.

I'm debating an acquaintance at work. I'm a believer, but I'm a new believer. I haven't had the chance to study, but I was able to read what he gave me, and found these "contradictions". I know it may be wrong but I'm using you guys to help me to be able to defend Christ. He's trampling Christ in front of people, and no one is there to defend Christ. These people have a chance to hear about God. I have some decent knowledge, but I'm not familiar with a lot of the text.

He uses Barth Ehrman as his references. Just like I'm going to use some of you guys, plus I'm going to do the research myself over the weekend.

Ah, that is who I had in mind. He was recently on the Colbert Report and Stephen Colbert had a very good heckle at this guy. I will look up some more info on him.

Edit:

Here is a good source with some information regarding a couple of debates with Ehrman. I'd been wanting to research this guy further since I saw the clip of him on Colbert so this will be a good exercise.

linky

I've been saving this bookmark for some time now. refuting Bart

Does not really matter.  It is a mashup and faked document.  The bible is not a history book nor factual.  

Please people, read all of it before you decide it to be a guide for your life.

it was the Illuminati right? Could be George W. Bush's fault as well.

thanks for your reply's Justice.

"He uses Barth Ehrman as his references."

Ah, well, that may might be what I picked up on in your questions, then.  My apologies if I came across improperly.  Modern textual criticism is hokey stuff with completely different and unbiblical presuppositions through which the text is judged and necessarily the canonicity of it all.  No other discipline in life approaches their particular discipline upon principles completely alien to it and brought forward and advanced by a group of people also alien to the discipline.  Modern biblical textual criticism does though, nobody elected and nobody ordained these university men to be biblical critics, rather they appointed themselves and selected their own unbelieving presuppositions and methodologies upon which to judge Scripture, presuppositions and methodologies which preclude in many instances the very basis of canonicity of the text recognized by the Christian Church for centuries upon centuries as indisputable evidences of Providential Preservation.  Hence, once that is both disturbed and rejected then every place some scribbles of biblical text is found they are considered, by the modern textual critics, to be some gold mine in which the so-called "original text" can be reconstructed by their self-elevated superiority.  If one stands upon the historic Christian faith, though, Scripture is received as a self-attesting body.  Christians receive the Gospel by faith, they also receive the Scripture by faith - this does not mean unintelligent, uncritical, unreasonable or any of the other atheistic and humanistic allegations leveled by modern critics.  Rather, it does mean that we have our own presuppositions and methodologies with historical continuity in which we recognize the Providential Preservation of Scripture and reject non-canonical evidences.  For example, a papyrus that may have had a copy of some particular book, but erased and then some other novel written upon it, does not serve as a trustworthy repository of evidence in which Christians recognize an authoritative text.  It simply means that someone copied a book from Scripture, erased it and then wrote some other book on that papyrus - and that is all it means.  In turn, treating that papyrus chemically to uncover what was at one time written on it does not serve as an authoritative text whereby we are going to judge the trustworthy repository of Scripture and start changing it to match this esoteric find in somebody's closet.  Like I said, no other discpline in life approaches their field of study upon completely arcane and ridiculous presuppositions as modern biblical criticism.

I would suggest since you are a new Christian, and I don't mean this in a condemning way, but not adept at handling Scripture yet, let alone the sophisticated attacks by the world upon it which has been an organized and systematic institutions within the university now for several centuries; that you need to be studing to sure up your footing in the faith.  Do what you can from where you are at in the circumstances you are in to apologetically defend it, but don't try to argue text criticism with a non-believer.

If you were a new recruit into the army, that hadn't even completed basic training, who would put promote you to a high ranking officer and put you in charge of fighting battles?  They wouldn't would they?  Not only that they wouldn't put you on the front lines as a grunt either, neither does God.  Hence, you may want to consider that our adversary, the ole deluder, is preying upon you with this fellow at work.  Protect your heart.

I agree. Thanks for the info. I actually  backed off from him, because was trying to trip me up, on things I didn't have the answers for.

Your questions have already been answered well, so I won't repeat any of that.

However, here's one word of advice: study your Bible every day. Just read a chapter each morning with coffee, and don't worry if you don't get it.

If you do this consistently, you will be shocked at how simple things become. As your knowledge grows, you will develop "the big picture," which dispels many of the supposed contradictions that non-believers will use to try to evangelize you away from your faith. Consider the whole armor of God:



Note that the truth, the gospel of peace, and the word of God are all pieces of that which protects you from those who would have you abandon your commitment to God. It actually works--the more you know, the more confidence you will have, the less you will be bothered by folks like that guy at work, and the better you'll be able to set him straight.

Great. Another evangelist.

You will one day regret calling the word of God anything less than perfection which is what it truly is in everything it professes.
It is certainly more alive than anyone of us even has the right to be!
We would all be dead to our trespasses and sins without it.
Thank You Jesus for this godly wisdom and knowledge that You have gracefully bestowed upon Your creation!
Amen

Thanks,

SAE
 

I am not a believer in the supernatural, but as a blanket statement, I would have to disagree with this. Even if you believe none of the supernatural stuff, there is still historical value to the text.

Supernatural-1. Existing or occurring through some agency beyond the known forces of nature.

What are the known forces of nature?

Not to mention that St Paul is one of the greatest judges of human nature in the history of literature.

And St Luke's two books are among the best examples of contemporaneous history ever.

The way Internet Atheists see the need to so dramatically overstate their hatred of all things Christian is very.... telling.