No, the Bible does not conflict. We read in one of two ways - to glean the truth of a matter or to fit it into our notions. If we're gleaning for the truth of what's there, there is no conflict. If we try to fit our ideas on it, then conflict appears to exist. If you add to it things that are in conflict, then conflict will exist because of what you've added.
Jesus tells us that divorce NEVER was the will of God.
This isn't a conflict. It is true. God initially forbade divorce; but, as the scripture states, grudgingly consented to it due to the hardness of man's heart. It was not God's will. But it isn't conflict to say he did it. It wasn't Pilot's will to crucify Christ; but, he did it. If you're fishing for appearances, you can find them. If you use some sense, they fall apart quickly.
God tells us in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that pork and shellfish render us impure. Jesus tells us that nothing a man puts in his mouth renders us impure, only that which comes out of it. But then Paul goes on about meat sacrificed to idols. So, which is it?
You're comparing apples and oranges. Impurity as regards kosher preperation and what was/was not allowed was a matter of physical shortcomings - ie what comes out of them. The animals were "unclean" or 'given to disease'. Paul is discussing spiritual uncleanliness when speaking on things given to idols.
Meat sacrificed to idols in and of itself is not impure; but, the demonic things that attach themselves to the meat is spiritually impure. By partaking of the meat, you drag along with it the unclean spirits. Thusly, abstention from them was a matter of wisdom to keep from all the ills that could arise from partaking. Staying out of heathen rituals was already a given and was seperately addressed. You weren't far off; but, as long as you heed the warning, the reasoning is unimportant. It only becomes important when you don't, then we have not far to go to help get ya out of trouble. Hopefully anyway. If you've ever dealt with opression and possession, it isn't necessarily that simple.
Indeed, the more consistently one follows what GOD said IN PERSON, when he was here in the flesh, the more that all of the strange conflicts of the Bible disappear or are cleared up.
This is simply a matter of contextualizing. Though overgeneral, it is essentially correct. But, it is not a given that people constrain themselves to contextualizing when they have adopted things that deconstruct the context and prefer their philosophies rather than the scriptures. Case in point, According to scripture, God was admonishing people in the OT about going to the market to by and eat bread that does not give life while noting that his words are the bread that does give life. If God's word was the bread of life back then and he was feeding it to people by speaking to them, how then is it required to eat something physical to partake of the "bread of life" in the new covenant. It isn't; but, that truth is missed because someone didn't know what they were reading.
As I noted before, the message is the matter of import, not the philosophy you supplant it with. Rewriting the covenant may be valid to you and give you a club or a religion; but, it doesn't give you eternal life. And it most assuredly doesn't give you authority. And I am using the word "you" ambiguously.. it is not intended to point you out specifically. The people it is for know precisely who they are and are likely a bit uncomfortable.
Let's return to Maccabbees for a moment and stipulate to some history.
Was the Jerusalem Temple the one true temple of God before the advent of Jesus? And were the High Priests of the Temple the authorities of God's Church before Jesus?
Yes or no?