Contradictions in the Bible-Part 4

>IS 3:13 God stands to judge.
>JL 3:12 He sits to judge.
It would seem that God does both, depending on what He chooses at the time.
 
>IS 44:24 God created heaven and earth alone.
>JN 1:1-3 Jesus took part in creation.
Jesus is God.
 
>IS 53:9 Usually taken to be a prophecy re: Jesus, mentions burial with others.
>MT 27:58-60, MK 15:45-46, LK 23:52-53, JN 19:38-42 Jesus was buried by himself.
 
My grandfather is buried in a crowded cemetery.  Is he buried by himself or with others?  Both.  Similarly Christ was alone in the tomb but was buried with the rich (wealthy gardens and sepulchers).  
 
>JE 12:13 Some sow wheat but reap thorns.
>MI 6:15 Some sow but won't reap anything.
>MT 25:26, LK 19:22 Some reap without sowing.
>2CO 9:6, GA 6:7 A man reaps what he sows.
 
"Sowing and reaping" can describe a literal planting and harvesting of grains or it can be an agricultural metaphor, applied in various ways under different circumstances to make a point.  Jeremiah and Micah both use it in the first sense, describing how Israel had come to a place of judgment for sin (as predicted in Deuteronomy 28).  Matthew and Luke both describe a ruthless lord who was wealthy and living off the efforts of others.  II Corinthians 9:6 uses the phrase as a metaphor in the area of charitable giving; Galatians 6:7 uses it as a metaphor in the area of good deeds; and I Corinthians 3:6 uses it as a metaphor in the area of missions.  The fact that different people in differing circumstances reap different results for their investment into different areas is no contradiction.
 
>JE 32:18 God shows love to thousands, but brings punishment for the sins of
>their fathers to many children.
>2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is a god of love.
 
This same argument is answered above.
 
>JE 34:4-5 Zedekiah was to die in peace.
>JE 52:10-11 Instead, Zedekaih's sons are slain before his eyes, his eyes are then put out, he is bound in fetters, taken to Babylon and left in prison to die.
 
The promise is not that he would live a wonderful life.  It was that he would die in peace rather than in war by the sword.  Note the context of the passage in Jeremiah 34.
 
>EZ 20:25-26 The law was not good. The sacrifice of children was for the purpose of horrifying the people so that they would know that God is Lord.
>RO 7:12, 1TI 1:8 The law is good.
 
The verse in Ezekiel is being terribly misinterpreted.  Just a few verses down (vs 31) God reiterates his wrath at giving the firstborn to the fire.  When God says he "gave them" in this passage, it is used in the same sense as Psalm 81:12 and Romans 1:24.  God stopped trying to change them and gave them over to their wickedness.
 
>EZ 26:15-21 God says that Tyre will be destroyed and will never be found again.
>(Nebudchanezzar failed to capture or destroy Tyre. It is still inhabited.)
 
It utterly astounds me that Zathrus should have the gall to cite this passage as evidence against the Bible's accuracy since Ezekiel's message against Tyre is one of the most dramatic evidences we have of fulfilled prophecy!  
 
Nebuchanezzar failed to totally subdue Tyre because the inhabitants of this seacoast city all abandoned Tyre proper to escape to a large island fortress off the coast.  Nevertheless, Nebuchanezzar's siege and looting of the seacoast city was praised and actually rewarded by God (Ezekiel 29:18-20).  His destruction of mainland portion of Tyre certainly fulfills verses 7-11 which apply to him.
 
However, verse 3 stipulates that multiple nations would be involved in the ultimate destruction of Tyre.  Some have said that there is no marvel in seeing such prophecy of a city's demise come true since every ancient capitol fell prey at one time or another.  The significance of Biblical prophecy is that its proclamations are VERY specific and differ by the city.  Notice the specificity:  (1) Vs 3 multiple nations involved.  (2) Vs 4 walls and towers were to be broken  (3) Vs 4 dirt was to be scraped off the area revealing the underlying rock (4) All the debris of the city was to be dumped in the water (5) Vs 14 It would be a place of fishermen spreading their nets. (6) The site would never be rebuilt.  
 
The dramatic fulfillment of the prophesied judgment was not completed in Nebuchanezzar since the inhabitants outlasted Nebuchanezzar on their Alcatraz-like island.  When Alexander the Great came through conquering the city of Tyre, the citizens tried the same trick...evacuating for the island fortress.  Alexander took a cue from the failure of Nebuchanezzar.  He took ALL of the debris from the city of Tyre (literally scraping it bare), built a causeway out to the island, and proceeded to destroy Tyre.  The modern city called Tyre was NOT constructed on this ancient site.  In fact the ancient plot is largely barren rock (somewhat inland from the modern construction), and has quite literally been used by local fishermen to lay out their nets!
 
>DN 5:1 (Gives the title of "king" to Belshazzar although Belshazzar was actually the "viceroy.")
 
Big deal.  Maybe in Chaldean or Hebrew these two were the same word.  Maybe he was referred to as king when he was acting ruler, in his dad's absence.
 
>DN 5:2 (Says that Nebuchadnezzar was the father of Belshazzar, but
>actually, >Nebonidus was the father of Belshazzar.) (Note: Some versions attempt >to correct this error by making the verse say that Nebuchadnezzar was >the grandfather of Belshazzar.)
 
It appears that in the Jewish tradition, the designation "son" was somewhat flexible.  There are multiple instances in the scripture where a grandson is called a son or a son in law is called a son.  There are also many instances when ALL of the descendants are collectively called "sons" (ie Genesis 23:3-5).
 
>ZE 11:12-13 Mentions "thirty pieces" and could possibly be thought to be connected with the Potter's Field prophesy referred to in Matthew.
>MT 27:9 Jeremiah is given as the source of the prophesy regarding the purchase of the Potter's Field. (Note: There is no such prophesy in Jeremiah.)
 
It does appear to reference the quote in Ezekiel.  Possibly the three books (Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel) were bound together at that time and called "Jeremy" much as the books the Pentateuch were bound together and called the Book of Moses.
 
>MT 1:6-7 The lineage of Jesus is traced through David's son, Solomon.
>LK 3:23-31 It is traced through David's son, Nathan.
>(Note: Some apologists assert that Luke traces the lineage through Mary. That this is untrue is obvious from the context since Luke and Matthew both clearly state that Joseph was Jesus' father.)
 
It clearly states nothing of the sort.  Luke 1:27 and 34-35 go to great pains to make clear that Joseph was NOT Jesus' biological father.  He was Jesus' earthly adopted father.  That is why Luke 3:23 adds the all-important phrase "as was supposed."  This genealogy traces the biological ancestry through Mary.
 
>MT 1:16 Jacob was Joseph's father.
>LK 3:23 Heli was Joseph's father.
 
Heli was Mary's dad.   He was Joseph’s FATHER-in-law.
 
>MT 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus.
>LK 3:23-38 There were forty-three
 
There are, as was noted above, several generations left out of Matthew's genealogy.  However, since Luke's genealogy traces a separate lineage, there is no need to have the identical number of generations.
 
>MT 1:18-21 The Annunciation occurred after Mary had conceived Jesus.
>LK 1:26-31 It occurred before conception.
 
The angel appeared to Mary before conception and to Joseph afterwards.
 
>MT 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph.
>LK 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary.
 
The angel came to both in turn.
 
>MT 1:20-23, LK 1:26-33 An angel announces to Joseph and/or Mary that the child (Jesus) will be "great," the "son of the Most High," etc., and ....
>MT 3:13-17, MK 1:9-11 The baptism of Jesus is accompanied by the most extraordinary happenings, yet ....
>MK 3:21 Jesus' own relatives (or friends) attempt to constrain him, thinking that he might be out of his mind, and ....
>MK 6:4-6 Jesus says that a prophet is without honor in his own house (which certainly should not have been the case considering the Annunciation and the Baptism).
 
It is unclear if any of Christ's family was present at the baptism.  It is also unclear which members of the Lord's family thought he was out of his mind (or exactly why).  However, history is replete with examples of great figures being scorned by their own family.  Some may have been skeptical of His miracles, embarrassed by His claims, or jealous of the crowds that followed Him.  Regardless of the reason, there is no contradiction here.
 
>MT 1:23 He will be called Emmanuel (or Immanuel).
>MT 1:25 Instead, he was called Jesus.
 
He had a great many names.  One of them was the Son of God.  Immanuel means "God with us."
 
>MT 2:13-16 Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt, (where they stay until after Herod's death) in order to avoid the murder of their firstborn by Herod. Herod slaughters all male infants two years old and under. (Note: John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin, though under two is somehow spared without fleeing to Egypt.)
>LK 2:22-40 Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary remain in the area of Jerusalem for the Presentation (about forty days) and then return to Nazareth without ever going to Egypt. There is no slaughter of the infants.
 
The reason that there are four gospels is that they complement each other.  Each one fills in events and perspectives that are not detailed in the others.  The fact that Luke picks up the story some time after the birth and does not record the slaughter of the innocents or flight to Egypt is not a contradiction.  In all likelihood, John the Baptist was not killed because he was not in the region of Bethlehem at the time.
 
>MT 2:23 "And he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: He will be called a Nazarene.'" (This prophecy is not found in the OT and while Jesus is often referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth", he is seldom referred to as "Jesus the Nazarene.")
 
Possibly it references Isaiah 11:1, which uses the word "branch" (Hebrew "Netzer") out of David.  The Greek in Matthew 2:23 is "Nazoraios."
 
>MT 3:11-14, JN 1:31-34 John realized the true identity of Jesus (as the Messiah) either prior to the actual Baptism, or from the Baptism onward. The very purpose of John's baptism was to reveal Jesus to Israel.
>MT 11:2-3 After the Baptism, John sends his disciples to ask if Jesus is the Messiah.
 
Neither the passage in Matthew 3 or John 1 indicate that John was decided on the fact that Christ was the Messiah (as opposed to a great prophet).  Even if he had realized it, the incident in Matthew occurred while John was in jail.  Possibly some rumors or misinformation had reached him concerning Jesus' preaching and he sent some disciples to find out whether Jesus was indeed claiming to be the Christ or had said something to the contrary.
 
>MT 3:12, 13:42 Hell is a furnace of fire (and must therefore be light).
>MT 8:12, 22:13, 25:30 Hell is an "outer darkness" (and therefore dark).
 
God can make a fire without light.  God can also blind the inhabitants so that they are in complete darkness.
 
>MT 3:16, MK 1:10 It was Jesus who saw the Spirit descending.
>JN 1:32 It was John who saw the Spirit descending.
Both did.
 
>MT 3:17 The heavenly voice addressed the crowd: "This is my beloved Son."
>MK 1:11, LK 3:22 The voice addressed Jesus: "You are my beloved Son...."
 
What if the voice said, "Behold my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."  Who was addressed?  Obviously both.  This nit-picking is meaningless to the story or the understanding of the point made.
 
>MT 4:1-11, MK 1:12-13 Immediately following his Baptism, Jesus spent forty days in the wilderness resisting temptation by the Devil.
>JN 2:1-11 Three days after the Baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana.
 
This passage in John never mentions the baptism!
 
>MT 4:5-8 The Devil took Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple, then to the
>mountain top.
>LK 4:5-9 First to the mountain top, then to the pinnacle of the temple.
 
Luke does not use chronological language to describe this event; but merely states: Satan did this, and this, and this.
 
>MT 4:18-20, MK 1:16-18 (One story about choosing Peter as a disciple.)
>LK 5:2-11 (A different story.)
>JN 1:35-42 (Still another story.)
 
These are different events.  For some time, the disciples did not stay with Christ full time.  Peter met Christ initially and went back to fishing.  Again he followed Christ for a few days and went back to his work.  Later he abandoned the family business and followed the Lord full time.
 
>MT 5:1 - 7:29 Jesus delivers his most noteworthy sermon while on the mount.
>LK 6:17-49 Jesus delivers his most noteworthy sermon while on the plain.
>(Note: No such sermons are mentioned in either MK or JN and Paul seems
>totally unfamiliar with either the sermon on the mount or the sermon on the plain.)
 
Jesus was an itinerant preacher who no doubt gave this message many times as He traveled about.  Paul was not a Christian at the time Jesus preached.  Later, however, he specifically reference Christ's message and then draws a distinction where he augments it (I Corinthians 7:12).
 
>MT 5:16 Good works should be seen.
>MT 6:1-4 They should be kept secret.
 
Again, you confuse two separate issues.  In Matthew 5, Christ encourages his followers to live a good life so that their works will draw people's attention to God.  However, Christians are not to blow a trumpet before themselves to draw attention to their benevolence (Matthew 6).  One passage deals with making sure you do good deeds, another deals with HOW you do the good deeds.  
 
>MT 5:17-19, LK 16:17 Jesus underscores the permanence of the law.
>LE 10:8 - 11:47, DT 14:3-21 The law distinguishes between clean and unclean foods.
>MK 7:14-15, MK 7:18-19 Jesus says that there is no such distinction.
>TI 4:1-4 All foods are clean according to Paul.
 
There are two aspects to the law: ceremonial and moral.  The ceremony ceased upon Christ's completed sacrifice.  The moral code still applies to point people to their need for a Savior (Galatians 3:24-25).
 
>MT 5:17-19, LK 16:17 Jesus did not come to abolish the law.
>EP 2:13-15, HE 7:18-19 Jesus did abolish the law.
See above.
 
>MT 5:22 Anyone who calls another a fool is liable to Hell.
>MT 7:26 Jesus says that anyone who hears his words and does not do them is a fool. (Note: The translation now prevalent, "like a foolish man," in MT 7:26 is a dishonest attempt to alleviate the obvious inconsistency here in that the oldest Greek manuscripts use the same Greek word translated "fool" in MT 5:22 and "like a foolish man" in MT 7:26.)
>MT 23:17-19 Jesus twice calls the Pharisees blind fools.
>MT 25:2, 3, 8 Jesus likens the maidens who took no oil to fools. (Note: Again, this is the same Greek word translated "fool" in MT 5:22 and MT 23:17-19.)
>1CO 1:23, 3:18, 4:10 Paul uses fool with regard to Christians becoming fools for Christ. (Note: Again, this is the same Greek word translated "fool" in MT 5:22 and MT 23:17-19.)
dittos (Paul does not call anyone, "Thou fool!")
 
>MT 5:22 Anger by itself is a sin.
>EP 4:26 Anger is not necessarily a sin.
 
You completely misquote Matthew 5:22.  It says, "Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."  Certainly anger without proper justification is a sin.
 
>MT 5:22 Anger by itself is a sin.
>MT 11:22-24, LK 10:13-15 Jesus curses the inhabitants of several cities who are not sufficiently impressed with his mighty works.
>MT 21:19, MK 11:12-14 Jesus curses a fig tree when it fails to bear fruit out of season.
>MK 3:5 Jesus looks around "angrily."
dittos
 
>MT 5:32 Divorce, except on the grounds of unchastity, is wrong.
>MK 10:11-12 Divorce on any grounds is wrong.
 
Matthew uses the famous "exception clause" as a justification for divorce but does not legitimize remarriage.  Mark 10:11-12 DOES NOT say "divorce on any grounds is wrong."  It condemns the act of remarriage as adultery (as does Luke 16:18).
 
>MT 5:39, MT 5:44 Jesus says: "Do not resist evil. Love your enemies."
>MT 6:15, 12:34, 16:3, 22:18, 23:13-15, 17, 19, 27, 29, 33, MK 7:6, LK
11:40, 44, 12:56 Jesus repeatedly hurls epithets at his opponents.
 
Dittos (Note that Christ never resisted authorities and, while angry at sin and false teaching, always acted in love.)
 
>MT 5:39, MT 5:44 Do not resist evil. Love your enemies.
>LK 19:27 God is likened to one who destroys his enemies.
Dittos.
 
>MT 5:39, MT 5:44 Do not resist evil. Love your enemies.
>JN 1:9-11 Shun anyone who does not hold the proper doctrine.
>MT 5:43-44, MT 22:39 Love your enemies. Love your neighbor as yourself.
>MT 10:5 Go nowhere among the Gentiles nor enter a Samaritan town.
 
This is inordinate stretching to try and concoct a contradiction.  Christ desire that his disciples FIRST call on Jews (see Acts 1:8).  The apostles message in II John 9-11 (not John 1:9-11) is certainly not motivated by hate. While a Christian must oppose anyone that is fighting against Christianity, one can still be loving.
 
>MT 5:45, 7:21 God resides in heaven.
>MK 13:32 The angels reside in heaven
>AC 7:55, HE 12:2 Jesus is at the right hand of God, in heaven.
>1PE 1:3-4 Believers will inherit eternal life in heaven.
>MT 24:35, MK 13:31, LK 21:33 Heaven will pass away.
 
When it does, God will replace it with a new heaven and a new earth and live there (Revelation 21:1).
 
>MT 6:13 God might lead us into temptation and it is better avoided.
>JA 1:2-3 Temptation is joy.
 
It is not wrong for Christians to pray to be delivered from trials.  However, if God brings them our way, we are to maintain a joyful disposition.
 
>MT 6:13 Jesus' prayer implies that God might lead us into temptation.
>JA 1:13 God tempts no one.
This same objection is answered above.
 
>MT 6:25-34, LK 12:22-31 Take no thought for tomorrow. God will take care of you.
>TI 5:8 A man who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel.
>(Note: Providing for a family certainly involves taking "thought for tomorrow.")
 
"Take no thought." in Matthew can be better translated, "Do not worry.  It is not God's desire that we stop making plans!
 
>MT 7:1-2 Do not judge.
>MT 7:15-20 Instructions for judging a false prophet.
 
The second passage does not even use the word “judge.”  Again, we have a balance in scripture.  Christians are not to pass judgment of their own accord (since we all are sinners before God).  However, we ARE to declare God’s judgment.  We ARE to be discerning of false doctrine that would destroy the Faith and harm people (John 7:24) and apply God’s Word to them.  This is not judging people.  Rather, it is making people aware of the judgment God has already rendered in His Word.  
 
>MT 7:7-8, LK 11:9-10 Ask and it will be given. Seek and you will find.
>LK 13:24 Many will try to enter the Kingdom but will be unable.
 
The first passages are directed to believers with regard to having your prayers answered.  The scripture in Luke 13 describes those that come to the judgment (note vs 25) and want to change their mind.  See also Matthew 7:21 and 25:40-46.
 
>MT 7:21 Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
>AC 2:21, RO 10:13 Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
>AC 2:39 Those God calls to himself will be saved.
See above.
 
>MT 7:21, LK 10:36-37, RO 2:6, 13, JA 2:24 We are justified by works, not by faith.
>JN 3:16, RO 3:20-26, EP 2:8-9, GA 2:16 We are justified by faith, not by works.
 
The passages in Matthew says that those who do what God wants will get into heaven.  Doing what God wants requires, first and foremost that one has faith in God (Hebrews 11:6).  The citation in Luke has nothing to do with justification. Romans, likewise, does not refer to justification, but to the degree of judgment or reward (after the eternal destiny has already been decided).  
 
We have in James an oft-misunderstood passage.  It is actually a simple concept. Romans views justification from God's perspective (Romans 4:9).  James views it from man's perspective.  Men can not see a person's heart like God can.  The only way we can evaluate if a man is justified is by the works that result.  Someone put it well: "Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone."  Works demonstrate saving faith (James 2:18).  James’ argument was against those that gave a mere intellectual assent of Christianity (just like the demons in vs 19) without ever coming to a life-changing decision.
 
>MT 8:5-12 The centurion himself approaches Jesus to ask to heal his servant.
>LK 7:2-10 The centurion sends elders to do the asking.
 
Matthew does seem to imply that the centurion comes in person.  However, the language does not preclude him from speaking through an emissary.  Indeed that is what happened in Acts 10:30-33 with the centurion Cornelius (and the language is similar).  This type of phrasing was customary at that time.  It is not unlike a spokesperson today speaking for a head of state.
 
>MT 8:16, LK 4:40 Jesus healed all that were sick.
>MK 1:32-34 Jesus healed many (but not all).
 
It says He healed many with various diseases and cast out many demons.  While it does not say that He healed all, it certainly does not preclude it.
 
>MT 8:28-33 Two demoniacs are healed in the Gadarene swine incident.
>MK 5:2-16, LK 8:26-36 One demoniac is healed in this incident.
 
If there were two demoniacs (Matthew), then Mark and Luke are correct in saying there was one.  They would only be a contradiction if they said ONLY one was healed.  The demonic had multiple personalities (Note in vs 9 “We are many!”) which may have confused the situation.
 
>MT 9:18 The ruler's daughter was already dead when Jesus raised her.
>LK 8:42 She was dying, but not dead.
 
You characterize NEITHER passage correctly.  In Matthew, they thought she was dead, but Jesus declared she was merely in a coma (vs 24); in Luke, they also informed Him that she had died before he gets there (vs 49) and Christ informs them she is only in a coma (vs 52).  There is no contradiction.
 
>MT 10:1-8 Jesus gives his disciples the power to exorcise and heal...
>MT 17:14-16 (Yet) the disciples are unable to do so.
 
This is a ridiculous mischaracterization.  The disciples do a great deal of healing and perform exorcism throughout the gospels and Acts.  To claim that they were unable to do so because of this one instance of failure on their part is like saying Michael Jordan was unable to play basketball because he missed a key shot and lost a game.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
 
>MT 10:2, MK 3:16-19 The twelve apostles (disciples) were: Simon (Peter), Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, John his brother, Philip, Bartholemew, Thomas, Matthew the tax collector, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus (Labbaeus), Simon, and Judas Iscariot.
>LK 6:13-16 The above except that Thaddaeus (Labbaeus) is excluded, and
>Judas the son of James is added (and Judas Iscariot remains).
>AC 1:13, 26 Same as MT and MK except that, like LK Thaddaeus (Labbaeus) is excluded, Judas the son of James is included, and Mathias is chosen by the others to replace Judas Iscariot.
 
Both Matthew and Luke were written by a disciple.  It is hard to believe that either of them would forget the name or would misname one of the twelve who lived, ate slept, and suffered together!  Even if these books were merely casual diaries and not holy scripture, one could not imagine such a blatant mistake being among the various errors that could crop up.  It is far more likely that this is the same individual.  Many of the disciples had multiple names.  Perhaps he had three: Thaddaeus, Labbaeus, and Judas.  The order in which the names are given (next to James) in each account would also seem to indicate this.
 
>MT 10:2, 5-6 Peter was to be an apostle to the Jews and not go near the Gentiles.
>AC 15:7 He was an apostle to the Gentiles.
 
He was to go first to the Jews and later to the Gentiles (Acts 1:8).
 
>MT 10:10 Do not take sandals (shoes) or staves.
>MK 6:8-9 Take sandals (shoes) and staves.
 
These are two different mission excursions in which Christ was training his disciples for their future ministry.  For a clearer example of how these unique requirements only applied to a specific mission trip, see Luke 22:35-36.  
 
>MT 10:34, LK 12:49-53 Jesus has come to bring a sword, fire, and division--not peace.
>JN 16:33 Jesus says: "In me you have peace."
 
He brought both, depending on the individual’s response to Christ.  The passage in John 16 was addressed to the disciples who believed on Him.  
 
>MT 10:22, 24:13, MK 13:13 He that endures to the end will be saved.
>MK 16:16 He that believes and is baptized will be saved.
>JN 3:5 Only he that is born of water and Spirit will be saved.
>AC 16:31 He that believes on the Lord Jesus will be saved.
>AC 2:21 He that calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.
>RO 10:9 He who confesses with his mouth "Jesus is Lord" and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead will be saved.
>1JN 4:7 He who loves is born of God (and presumably will be saved.)
 
Where is the supposed contradiction?  I could see that there would be one if Romans 10 said that one must confess and believe, rather than calling on the name of the Lord.  Instead, that passage in verse 13 mentions calling on the name of the Lord, indicating it is synonymous with confessing and believing.  Furthermore, any person that does believe and call on God, will be born of the Spirit (simultaneous with being saved) and will endure to the end.  The only passage that is slightly different from the others is I John, since it is not talking about what is required for salvation.  It is discussing evidence of salvation (after-the-fact).
 
>MT 10:28, LK 12:4 Jesus says not to fear men. (Fear God only.)
>MT 12:15-16, JN 7:1-10, 8:59, 10:39, 11:53-54 Jesus hid, escaped, went secretly, etc.
 
Was Christ motivated by fear or a desire to avoid a physical confrontation before the appropriate time?  John 7:6 and Matthew 26:18 indicates that Jesus was very concerned about the timing of His sacrifice.  When that time came, He predicted His betrayal and death, offered no resistance to his arrest and gave no defense to Pilate…certainly not the actions of a fearful man.
 
>MT 11:7-15, 17:12-13 Jesus says that John the Baptist was a prophet, and more.
>JN 1:21 John himself says that he is not a prophet, nor is he Elijah.
 
John does not say that he was not A prophet.  Rather he denies that he is THAT prophet which they were referencing.
 
>MT 11:25, MK 4:11-12 Jesus thanks God for hiding some things from the wise while revealing them to "babes." He says that he uses parables so that the meaning of some of his teachings will remain hidden to at least some persons, and specifically so that they will not turn and be forgiven.
>MK 4:22 Jesus says that all things should be made known.
 
Christ does not declare that all things SHOULD be made known, but that all things would eventually BE made known.  Indeed, after his death and ascension, the specifics of his life were made known to all who would listen, being preached throughout many countries in the ancient world.
 
>MT 11:29 Jesus says that he is gentle (meek) and humble (lowly).
>JN 2:15 Jesus makes a whip of cords, drives the money changers from the Temple, overturns their tables, and pours out their coins. (Note: The presence of the money changers in the outer court of the Temple had been authorized by the Temple authorities and was, in fact, a necessity since the Jews would not accept Roman coin for the purchase of sacrifices.)
 
Certainly the money changing could have happened outside the temple.  But this has nothing to do with the alleged contradiction.  Meekness is not weakness or timidity.  It is strength under control or great self restraint.  Note that Moses, the meekest man around (Numbers 12:3) could be very strong in judgment (Exodus 32:19-29) when it was appropriate.
 
>MT 12:5 Jesus says that the law (OT) states that the priests profane the Sabbath but are blameless. (No such statement is found in the OT.
 
No work was to be done on the Sabbath.  Yet the priests were commanded to continue their work of sacrificing (Numbers 28:9-10) as an exception to the Sabbath law.  See also Mark 2:27.
 
>MT 12:30 Jesus says that those who are not with him are against him.
>MK 9:40 Jesus says that those who are not against him are for him.
>(Note: This puts those who are indifferent or undecided in the "for him" category in the first instance and in the "against him" category in the second instance.)
 
There is no in-between; it is black and white; you are a child of God or a child of the devil; bound for heaven or bound for hell. If you consider yourself indifferent or undecided towards the perfect Son of God who died for you, then you are against Him.  You can change from one camp to the other, but you can not hide in-between the two.
 
>MT 12:39, MK 8:12, LK 11:29 Jesus says that he will give no "sign."
>JN 3:2, 20:30, AC 2:22 Jesus proceeds to give many such "signs."
The context of these passages makes the answer clear if it were read.  Note in Mark 8:11 that the Pharisees were wrongly motivated.  Christ does not perform a miracle on a whim to satisfy his enemies.  His statement in Matthew 12:39 is that wicked people would only get one sign…His resurrection.  He did many miracles to help people in need and to validate His message before those who were sincere.
 
>MT 13:34, MK 4:34 Jesus addresses the crowds only in parables, so that they would not fully understand. He explains the meaning only to his disciples.
>JN 1:1 - 21:25 (Throughout the book of John, unlike the other Gospels,
Jesus addresses the crowds in a very straightforward manner. He does not employ parables.)
 
The book of John does not contain all the public sermons that are in the other gospels.  However, there are still some parables (John 10:6).
 
>MT 13:58, MK 6:5 In spite of his faith, Jesus is not able to perform mighty miracles.
>MT 17:20, 19:26, MK 9:23, 10:27, LK 17:6, 18:27 Jesus says that anything is possible to him who believes if he has the faith of a grain of mustard seed.