Solving the apparent contradictions in the Gospels
Claim: Jesus' lineage was traced through David's son Solomon. Mt.1:6. Jesus' lineage was traced through David's son Nathan. Lk.3:31.
Response: The apparent contradiction in Jesus' genealogy traced through David's son Solomon in Matthew 1:6 and through David's son Nathan in Luke 3:31 is a subject of much debate and discussion among biblical scholars and theologians. One possible explanation is that these genealogies represent different branches of Jesus' family tree. Matthew traces Jesus' ancestry through Joseph, his legal father, who was a descendant of Solomon. In contrast, Luke traces Jesus' ancestry through Mary, his biological mother, who was a descendant of Nathan. This explanation is supported by the fact that Matthew's genealogy begins with Abraham and highlights the royal lineage of Jesus, whereas Luke's genealogy begins with Adam and emphasizes Jesus' universal human nature. Another possible explanation is that these genealogies represent different perspectives or purposes of the Gospel writers. Matthew wrote his Gospel primarily for a Jewish audience, and thus he emphasizes Jesus' connection to the Davidic dynasty and the Old Testament prophecies. Luke, on the other hand, wrote his Gospel primarily for a Gentile audience, and thus he emphasizes Jesus' universal mission and his identity as the Savior of all people. Regardless of the explanation, it is important to recognize that these apparent contradictions do not detract from the central message of the Gospel, which is the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Claim: The announcement of the special birth came before conception. Lk.1:26-31. The announcement of the special birth came after conception. Mt.1:18-21.
Response: The apparent contradiction between the timing of the announcement of the special birth in Luke 1:26-31 and Matthew 1:18-21 can be explained by recognizing that these passages describe two different events. In Luke's Gospel, the announcement of the special birth is made to Mary before she conceives Jesus. The angel Gabriel visits Mary and tells her that she will conceive and give birth to a son who will be called Jesus, the Son of the Most High. This announcement occurs prior to any physical conception, and it is a significant moment in the story of Jesus' birth. In Matthew's Gospel, the announcement of the special birth is made to Joseph after Mary has conceived Jesus. Joseph is initially troubled by Mary's pregnancy, and he plans to quietly divorce her. However, an angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary's child was conceived by the Holy Spirit and that he should take Mary as his wife and name the child Jesus. This announcement occurs after the conception has taken place, and it serves to reassure Joseph that Mary's pregnancy is part of God's plan. Therefore, while the timing of the announcement of the special birth differs in Luke and Matthew, it is important to recognize that these passages are describing different events in the story of Jesus' birth. The announcement to Mary emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus' conception, while the announcement to Joseph emphasizes the importance of his role as the earthly father of Jesus.
Claim: Jesus' parents were told of their son's future greatness. Mt.1:18-21; Lk.1:28-35. Jesus' parents knew nothing of their son's potential. Lk.2:48-50.
Response: The Bible records that before Jesus was born, an angel appeared to both Mary (in Luke 1:26-38) and Joseph (in Matthew 1:18-21) to announce the birth of their child and his future greatness. Mary was told that she would give birth to the Son of God, while Joseph was told that the child would save his people from their sins. However, it is true that Jesus' parents did not fully understand the extent of their son's potential and mission until later in his life. In Luke 2:48-50, we read about an incident when Jesus was twelve years old and his parents had lost track of him during a trip to Jerusalem. They found him in the temple, discussing with the teachers and amazing them with his understanding and answers. When his mother expressed her concern, Jesus replied, "Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" This statement likely confused his parents, who did not yet fully grasp the significance of Jesus' divine nature and mission. Overall, the Bible teaches that Jesus' parents were aware of their son's future greatness and unique identity as the Son of God, but they did not fully comprehend the full extent of his mission until later in his life.
Claim: The angel told Joseph. Mt.1:20. The angel told Mary. Lk.1:28.
Response: These two statements refer to two different events in the Bible that involve the birth of Jesus Christ. In Matthew 1:20, an angel appears to Joseph, who was engaged to Mary, and tells him not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife, even though she is pregnant. The angel explains that the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit and that he is to be named Jesus, which means "savior," because he will save his people from their sins. In Luke 1:28, an angel appears to Mary, who was a young woman in Nazareth, and tells her that she has found favor with God. The angel announces to Mary that she will conceive and give birth to a son who will be called Jesus, the Son of God. Mary asks how this is possible, since she is a virgin, and the angel explains that the Holy Spirit will come upon her and the child will be holy.
Both of these events are significant because they foreshadow the birth of Jesus, who Christians believe is the Son of God and the savior of the world. They also demonstrate the importance of faith, obedience, and trust in God's plan.
Claim: There were 28 generations from David to Jesus. Mt.1:17. There were 43 generations from David to Jesus. Lk.3:23-31.
Response: These two verses refer to the genealogy of Jesus Christ and his lineage tracing back to King David, who was a significant figure in Jewish history. In Matthew 1:17, it says that there were 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 generations from David to the Babylonian captivity, and 14 generations from the Babylonian captivity to Jesus. Therefore, in Matthew's genealogy, there were a total of 28 generations from David to Jesus. In Luke 3:23-31, it provides a different genealogy of Jesus, which traces his lineage through his earthly father, Joseph. Luke's genealogy also goes back to David, but it lists a longer lineage, tracing back through Nathan, another son of David. Therefore, in Luke's genealogy, there were a total of 43 generations from David to Jesus. The difference in the number of generations can be explained by the fact that the two genealogies have different purposes and were written for different audiences. Matthew's genealogy was written primarily for a Jewish audience, and its structure highlights significant periods of Jewish history. Luke's genealogy, on the other hand, was written for a Gentile audience, and its structure emphasizes the universality of Jesus as the savior of all people. It is also worth noting that there may have been different methods of counting generations during the time of the Bible, and genealogies were often used to establish a person's identity and claim to a particular inheritance or lineage.
Claim: Jacob was Joseph's father. Mt.1:16. Heli was Joseph's father. Lk.3:23.
Response: This apparent contradiction in the genealogy of Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus Christ, is a source of confusion for many readers of the Bible. However, it can be resolved by understanding that the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke have different purposes and trace different family lines. Matthew's genealogy traces the line of Joseph's legal fatherhood, starting with Abraham and ending with Jesus. In Matthew 1:16, it says that "Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah." This means that Jacob is listed as Joseph's father in Matthew's genealogy because he was his legal father, the one who raised him and passed on his inheritance. Luke's genealogy, on the other hand, traces the line of Mary's ancestry back to Adam. In Luke 3:23, it says that "Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli." This means that Heli is listed as Joseph's father in Luke's genealogy because he was his father-in-law, the father of Mary. The different genealogies serve different purposes. Matthew's genealogy emphasizes Jesus' legal right to the throne of David, while Luke's emphasizes his humanity and connection to all people as a descendant of Adam. Therefore, both genealogies are correct, and there is no contradiction between them. They simply trace different family lines and serve different purposes.
Claim: He was to be called Emmanuel. Mt.1:23. He was called Jesus. Mt.1:25.
Response: Matthew 1:23 says, "The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" (which means "God with us"). This prophecy is fulfilled when Jesus is born, and it emphasizes the belief that Jesus is the incarnation of God, sent to be with us and save us from our sins. However, in Matthew 1:25, it says that Joseph "did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." So while the prophecy says that Jesus will be called Immanuel, Joseph names him Jesus instead. This apparent discrepancy can be understood by recognizing that "Immanuel" was not intended to be Jesus' given name, but rather a title or description of his mission and identity. "Jesus," on the other hand, was a common name at the time, meaning "God saves," and it was a name that Joseph and Mary would have been familiar with and comfortable giving to their son. In addition, it's possible that the naming of Jesus as "Immanuel" was not meant to be a literal name, but rather a symbolic representation of his role as the one who brings God's presence and salvation to humanity. So while Jesus was not named "Immanuel" in a literal sense, he fulfilled the prophecy by embodying the characteristics and mission that the name represents.
Claim: Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt while Herod slaughters all males under 2 years old. Mt.2:13-16. (Note: Jesus' cousin, John, was also under 2 and survived without having to flee.) Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not flee to Egypt but remained for temple rituals. No slaughter of infants is mentioned! Lk.2:21-39
Response: The accounts in Matthew 2:13-16 and Luke 2:21-39 present different perspectives and focus on different aspects of Jesus' infancy. Matthew's account describes how an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, warning him of Herod's plan to kill Jesus and instructing him to take his family and flee to Egypt. Herod had ordered the slaughter of all male infants in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old or younger, in an attempt to eliminate the newborn king who had been prophesied. Luke's account, on the other hand, focuses on the presentation of Jesus at the temple in Jerusalem, where Mary and Joseph offered sacrifices in accordance with Jewish law. There is no mention of a massacre of infants or a flight to Egypt. These two accounts are not necessarily contradictory, but rather present different aspects of Jesus' infancy. It is possible that after the presentation at the temple, Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem and later fled to Egypt to escape Herod's wrath. As for John the Baptist, who was also a child under the age of two at the time of Herod's order, it is possible that his family was able to hide him or flee to safety in a different area, as there is no mention of his being included in the massacre. It is important to consider the historical and cultural context of these accounts and recognize that they were written from different perspectives and for different audiences, which may have influenced their focus and emphasis.
Claim: Jesus was tempted during the 40 days in the wilderness. Mk.1:13. Jesus was tempted after the 40 days in the wilderness. Mt.4:2,3.
Response: It may seem at first glance that these two verses are contradictory, but in fact they describe different parts of the same event - the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. Mark's account in Mark 1:13 simply states that Jesus was in the wilderness for forty days and was tempted by Satan. Matthew's account in Matthew 4:2-3 gives more detail, explaining that Jesus fasted for forty days and then the tempter came to him and tempted him. So, while Mark does not specify exactly when the temptation occurred during the forty days, Matthew is more specific in saying that it happened after the forty days of fasting. It is important to note that the order in which events are presented in the Gospels is not always strictly chronological. Rather, the writers often arranged the material thematically or in a way that emphasized certain aspects of Jesus' life and ministry. In this case, Mark's account emphasizes the fact that Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, while Matthew's account emphasizes the timing of the temptation and the fact that it occurred after Jesus' extended period of fasting. Therefore, these two verses do not actually contradict each other but rather offer complementary details about the same event.
Claim: The devil first took Jesus to the pinnacle, then to the mountain top. Mt.4:5-8. The devil first took Jesus to the mountain top, then to the pinnacle. Lk.4:5-9.
Response: There is an apparent discrepancy between these two verses about the order in which the devil took Jesus to different locations during the temptation. However, it is important to note that the order of events in the Gospels is not always presented in strict chronological order, and different authors may choose to emphasize different aspects of the story. In this case, Matthew and Luke likely had different reasons for ordering the events as they did. Matthew may have emphasized the importance of the temple by placing the pinnacle first, as it was a prominent part of the temple complex. Luke, on the other hand, may have wanted to emphasize the mountain as a place of spiritual significance, which is why he mentioned it first. It is also possible that the devil took Jesus to both locations multiple times during the temptation, and the order of events differed in each instance. Regardless of the order in which the devil took Jesus to these locations, the important aspect of the story is that Jesus resisted the devil's temptations and remained faithful to God.
Claim: Satan tempted Jesus. Mt.4:1-10; Mk.1:13; Lk.4:1,2. Satan had no interest in Jesus. Jn.14:30.
Response: It is true that in John 14:30, Jesus says, "I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me." Some might interpret this to mean that Satan had no interest in Jesus. However, this verse does not necessarily contradict the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke that describe Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness. John's Gospel focuses on the cosmic battle between light and darkness, and Jesus is portrayed as the one who came to overcome the power of the evil one. In this context, when Jesus says that Satan has no hold over him, he means that Satan cannot ultimately defeat him or prevent him from fulfilling his mission. However, this does not mean that Satan did not attempt to tempt Jesus during his earthly ministry, as described in the other Gospels. In fact, the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness is a crucial part of the Gospel narrative, as it shows how Jesus was able to resist the devil's temptations and remain faithful to God. This event also highlights Jesus' humanity, as he experienced temptation in the same way that all human beings do, yet was able to overcome it through his reliance on God. Therefore, while there may be some apparent discrepancy between John 14:30 and the other Gospels' accounts of Satan tempting Jesus, these differences can be reconciled within the larger context of the Gospel narrative.
Claim: The baptism of Jesus was with the "Holy Ghost". Mk.1:8; Jn.1:33. Fire was also added to the baptism. Mt.3:11; Lu.3:16.
Response: It is true that the accounts of Jesus' baptism in the Gospels emphasize different aspects of the baptism. Mark and John focus on the baptism of the Holy Spirit, while Matthew and Luke add the detail that there will be a baptism with fire. The baptism of the Holy Spirit refers to the empowering presence of the Spirit in the life of the believer. John the Baptist said that he baptized with water, but Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8; John 1:33). This baptism of the Holy Spirit would enable believers to live a new life in Christ and to be empowered for service in his kingdom. The baptism with fire mentioned in Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:16 likely refers to the judgment and purification that will accompany Christ's coming. John the Baptist says that Jesus will come to "burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12; Luke 3:17). This may refer to the separation of those who follow Christ from those who reject him, or to the refining process that believers must go through in order to be purified and made ready for the kingdom of God. Taken together, these different aspects of the baptism of Jesus emphasize different facets of the spiritual transformation that occurs when someone places their faith in Christ. The baptism of the Holy Spirit brings the empowering presence of God into the life of the believer, while the baptism with fire reminds us of the judgment and purification that are part of the process of becoming a disciple of Christ.
Claim: John knew of Jesus before he baptized him. Mt.3:11-13; Jn.1:28,29. John knew nothing of Jesus at all. Mt.11:1-3
Response: There seems to be some discrepancy between these two passages in the Gospels regarding John the Baptist's knowledge of Jesus. In Matthew 3:11-13 and John 1:28-29, it is clear that John the Baptist knew of Jesus before he baptized him. In these passages, John identifies Jesus as the "Lamb of God" who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29) and says that he is not worthy to untie Jesus' sandals (Matthew 3:11). However, in Matthew 11:1-3, John sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the Messiah or if they should expect someone else. This seems to suggest that John did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah at that point, even though he had baptized him earlier. Some scholars suggest that John's question in Matthew 11 may have been prompted by his own doubts or by the fact that Jesus' ministry did not seem to align with his expectations of the Messiah. Others suggest that the question may have been asked on behalf of John's disciples, who were themselves uncertain about Jesus' identity. In any case, while there may be some apparent discrepancy between these passages, they can be understood within the larger context of the Gospel narrative. The Gospels show us that the disciples and even those closest to Jesus sometimes struggled to fully understand his identity and mission, and John the Baptist may have been no exception.
Claim: Jesus begins his ministry after John's arrest. Mk.1:13,14. Jesus begins his ministry before John's arrest. Jn.3:22-24.
Response: There does appear to be a discrepancy between these two passages regarding the timing of Jesus' ministry relative to John the Baptist's arrest. Mark 1:13-14 indicates that Jesus began his public ministry after John the Baptist had been arrested. In this passage, Jesus goes to Galilee and proclaims the good news of the kingdom of God, saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news" (Mark 1:15). However, John 3:22-24 suggests that Jesus began his ministry before John the Baptist's arrest. In this passage, John is still baptizing in Aenon, near Salim, and a discussion arises between John's disciples and a Jew about purification. The passage goes on to say that John had not yet been thrown into prison. It's possible that these two passages are referring to different aspects of Jesus' ministry. Mark may be emphasizing the idea that Jesus took up the mantle of proclaiming the kingdom of God after John's arrest, while John's Gospel may be highlighting the fact that there was some overlap between the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus. Alternatively, it's possible that there is a scribal error or some other kind of inconsistency in the Gospel accounts. However, despite this apparent discrepancy, both accounts agree on the core message and significance of Jesus' ministry as a bearer of God's kingdom and a bringer of salvation.
Claim: It is recorded that Jesus saw the spirit descending. Mt.3:16; Mk.1:10. It is recorded that John saw the spirit descending. Jn.1:32.
Response: Yes, there is a difference in the Gospel accounts regarding who saw the Spirit descending on Jesus at his baptism. Matthew 3:16 and Mark 1:10 both state that Jesus saw the Spirit descending like a dove and coming to rest on him at his baptism. However, in John 1:32, it is John the Baptist who saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove and remain on Jesus. John the Baptist then testifies that he has seen the Spirit descend and that it is a sign that Jesus is the Son of God. It's possible that both Jesus and John saw the Spirit descending, but the Gospel accounts emphasize different aspects of the event. Matthew and Mark may be highlighting Jesus' experience of the Spirit descending upon him, while John's Gospel may be emphasizing John the Baptist's testimony to Jesus' identity as the Son of God. Regardless, all of the accounts agree that the Spirit played a significant role in Jesus' baptism and ministry.
Claim: The heavenly voice addressed the gathering. Mt.3:17. The heavenly voice addressed Jesus. Mk.1:11; Lk.3:22
Response: Yes, there is a difference in the Gospel accounts regarding who the heavenly voice addressed at Jesus' baptism. Matthew 3:17 states that a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased" at Jesus' baptism. The passage does not specify to whom the voice was addressed. Mark 1:11 and Luke 3:22 both state that the voice addressed Jesus directly, saying, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased." These accounts emphasize the personal nature of the voice's message to Jesus. Again, it's possible that both accounts are accurate and that the heavenly voice addressed both Jesus and the gathered crowd. However, the emphasis in each Gospel account is different. Matthew's account emphasizes the significance of Jesus' identity as the beloved Son of God, while Mark and Luke's accounts emphasize the personal nature of the heavenly voice's message to Jesus.
Claim: Immediately after the baptism, Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness. Mt.4:1,2; Mk.1:12,13. Three days after the baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana. Jn.2:1.
Response: Yes, there is a difference in the Gospel accounts regarding the timeline of events after Jesus' baptism. Matthew 4:1-2 and Mark 1:12-13 both state that immediately after his baptism, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. These accounts indicate that Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness before beginning his public ministry. On the other hand, John 2:1 states that three days after the baptism, Jesus and his disciples were invited to a wedding in Cana, where Jesus performed his first miracle by turning water into wine. This account suggests that Jesus began his public ministry shortly after his baptism and temptation in the wilderness. It's possible that both accounts are accurate and that Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness before beginning his public ministry, but also attended the wedding in Cana shortly thereafter. Alternatively, there may be some differences in the timeline of events between the Gospel accounts.
Claim: Jesus went to Bethphage and the Mt. of Olives, then left for Bethany. Mt.21:1,17. Jesus went to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mt. of Olives. Mk.11:1; Lk.19:29. Jesus went to Bethany and then Jerusalem. Jn.12:1,12.
Response: Yes, there are differences in the Gospel accounts regarding the order in which Jesus visited Bethphage, Bethany, and the Mount of Olives. Matthew 21:1 and 17 mention that Jesus went to Bethphage and the Mount of Olives, and then left for Bethany. Mark 11:1 and Luke 19:29 mention that Jesus went to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives. This could suggest that Jesus visited Bethany first and then went on to Bethphage and the Mount of Olives. John 12:1 and 12 also mention that Jesus went to Bethany, and then to Jerusalem for the triumphal entry. However, this account does not mention Bethphage or the Mount of Olives. It's important to remember that each Gospel account was written by a different author and with a different purpose, and so differences in details and order of events can occur.
Claim: Jesus and his disciples taught in Capernaum. Mk.1:20,21. Only Jesus taught in Capernaum. Lk.4:30,31.
Response:There are differences in the Gospel accounts regarding whether Jesus and his disciples taught in Capernaum or if only Jesus taught there. Mark 1:20-21 mentions that Jesus and his disciples went to Capernaum and Jesus taught in the synagogue there. Luke 4:30-31, on the other hand, mentions that Jesus went alone to Capernaum and taught in the synagogue there. This account does not mention the disciples being present with Jesus. It's important to note that differences in details and events can occur in the Gospel accounts, as each author had a different perspective, purpose, and audience.
Claim: Peter was to preach to the Jews. Mt.10:2,5,6; Gal.2:7. Peter was to preach to the Gentiles. Acts 15:7.
Response: There does appear to be a contradiction between these two statements. In Matthew 10:5-6, Jesus sent out the twelve apostles with specific instructions to not go among the Gentiles or the Samaritans, but rather to go to the lost sheep of Israel. This would suggest that Peter and the other apostles were primarily focused on preaching to Jews. However, in Acts 15:7, Peter does indeed preach to the Gentiles. This happens during the Jerusalem Council, where the early church leaders are discussing whether Gentile converts to Christianity need to follow Jewish customs like circumcision. Peter speaks up and reminds everyone that God has already accepted Gentile believers and that they should not be burdened with Jewish customs. It's possible that Peter's role evolved over time, from primarily preaching to Jews to eventually also ministering to Gentiles. Alternatively, it's possible that Peter's mission was always focused on the Jews, but he was willing to preach to Gentiles when the situation called for it. Either way, it's clear that Peter played an important role in the early Christian mission to both Jews and Gentiles.
Claim: Jesus cured Simon Peter's mother-in-law after he cleansed the leper. Mt.8:1-15. Jesus cured Simon Peter's mother-in-law before he cleansed the leper. Mk.1:30-42; Lk.4:38 to 5:13.
Response: According to the Gospel of Mark and Luke, Jesus cured Simon Peter's mother-in-law before he cleansed the leper. In Mark 1:29-34, it says that Jesus went to Simon Peter's house and cured his mother-in-law, and then healed many who were sick or possessed by demons. In Luke 4:38-41, it also says that Jesus went to Simon Peter's house and healed his mother-in-law before preaching in the synagogues. So, it seems that Matthew's account differs from the other two Gospels.
Claim: Peter's mother-in-law was healed before Peter was called to be a disciple. Lu.4:38,39; 5:10. Peter's mother-in-law was healed after Peter was called to be a disciple. Mt.4:18,19; 8:14,15; Mk.1:16,17,30,31.
Response: It seems that there is a contradiction in the Bible regarding the timing of Peter's mother-in-law's healing in relation to when Peter was called to be a disciple. According to Luke 4:38-39 and 5:10, Peter's mother-in-law was healed before Peter was called to be a disciple. However, according to Matthew 4:18-19 and 8:14-15, as well as Mark 1:16-17 and 1:30-31, Peter was called to be a disciple before his mother-in-law was healed. It is important to note that these discrepancies do not undermine the message or overall teachings of the Bible.
Claim: James and John were with Jesus when he healed Simon Peter's mother-in-law. Mk.1:29-31. James and John were not with Jesus when he healed Simon Peter's mother-in-law. Lu.4:38,39; 5:10,11.
Response: It is possible that James and John were present at Simon Peter's house when Jesus healed his mother-in-law, but they were not mentioned in Luke's account. The Gospel writers often emphasized different aspects of the same event and may have chosen to focus on different details. Another explanation could be that James and John were not present at the time of the healing, but arrived later and were told about it by Peter or the others who witnessed it. Ultimately, the exact timing and presence of James and John during the healing of Simon Peter's mother-in-law is unclear and may not be essential to the overall message and meaning of the story.
Claim: Lebbaeus (Thaddaeus) was the name of an apostle - but no Judas, brother of James. Mt. 10:3. Judas, the brother of James, was an apostle, but no Thaddaeus. Lk.6:16; Acts 1:13.
Response: There are several possible explanations for this apparent discrepancy: One possibility is that Thaddaeus was also known as Judas, or had a second name. This was common in Jewish culture at the time, and it's possible that Thaddaeus was referred to by both names. Another possibility is that there were two apostles named Judas - one who was the brother of James, and another who was known as Thaddaeus. This would explain why some lists of apostles include Judas but not Thaddaeus, and vice versa. It's also possible that there was a mistake or error in the recording or transmission of the information about the apostles. This is not uncommon in ancient texts, and it's possible that a scribe or copyist made an error when copying the list of apostles.
Claim: 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.
Response: In Matthew's account, the healing of the centurion's servant follows immediately after the cleansing of the leper and the healing of Peter's mother-in-law, which implies that it occurred in between the two events. However, in Luke's account, it appears that the healing of the centurion's servant happened later, as it is described after a separate event in which Jesus teaches in the synagogue in Capernaum and heals a man with an unclean spirit. Additionally, Luke provides a more detailed account of the healing of the centurion's servant, describing how the centurion sends some Jewish elders to ask Jesus for the healing, and then sends some friends to intercept Jesus on his way to the centurion's house. This suggests that there was a significant interval of time between the healing of Peter's mother-in-law and the healing of the centurion's servant.
