The most significant contradiction or inconcistency?

[shnarkle]

There are no shortage of online sites providing numerous examples of contradictions and inconsistencies from the biblical texts. While some of these are quite simply the result of poor reading comprehension skills or an unfamiliarity with the texts, others seem legitimate. Many of those that are legitimate are inconsequential, but some could be quite controversial and may have significant ramifications.

Of all the contradictions found in scripture, which ones could prove to be most disturbing, or have the most serious ramifications for "believers"?


One that I think fits this bill is Paul's view on eating food sacrificed to false gods. He doesn't seem to have a problem with it if it doesn't have a negative effect over a fellow believer's faith. While I can see his point, and also agree that none of those pagan deities are real, I do wonder how he is able to disregard the law which he upholds; a law that forbids eating anything that is sacrificed to idols.

The reason this could be looked at as disturbing is because it indicates to me that Paul has attributed capriciousness to Paul's God.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

I'll play, there's so many to choose from. For me, the ones that show the contradictions in the nature of the god character the Bible is trying to convey are the most damning IMHO.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

I guess he changed his mind from his earlier stance:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Genesis 7:4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.�

Yup, he's so loving, he couldn't use his creation level of power to come up with a more loving approach than worldwide destruction to solve his problem. Even just simply killing all the people would have been a better start. Or how about just killing the actual sinners? Nope, must show god level of power rather than god level of intelligent solution.

This theme is fairly consistent. In the OT, the god is more about shows of power and destruction whereas in the NT, the god is more about a loving father figure. It's almost as if the OT god is a child and the NT god finally grew up.

[dianaiad]

You are clueless about what Law is and what a covenant is.....

Moderator Warning


Address the content of the post. Do not make comments about the writer of it, especially in negative terms.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Elijah John]

Of all the contradictions found in scripture, which ones could prove to be most disturbing, or have the most serious ramifications for "believers"?

I think you make an excellent observation that some contradictions in the Bible are minor, and some are major.

Some major contradictions, with the most serious ramifications for believers, would be:

1) Position a Paul's negative attitiude toward the Law, vs position b the positive attitude of "Old" Testament writers, that of Jesus himself.

2) Position a. Whether Jesus is God Himself, an uncreated being as John and Paul suggest, or position b. Jesus too, was a created being, a human man. There is no notion of Jesus "pre-existance" in the Synoptics.

3) Position a.Whether shed blood is needed for the forgiveness of sins as taught by Moses, Paul and the author of Hebrews or position b. forgiveness is based on the merciful nature of the Father who accepts simple repentance. This was taught by the Prophets, John the Baptist and by Jesus.

4) Position a Jesus is sinless and perfect, as claimed by Paul and the author of Hebrews vs. position b Jesus is a righteous, but imperfect human being, as demonstrated in the Synoptics.

Ramifications?

If position "a" is maintained, we have what we have today. Conventional Trinitarian, blood-based Christianity which, arguably Jesus himself would not recognize.

If position 'b" is adopted, we have something very different. A simpler, arguably more believable faith which Jesus and most of his early followers would more likely recognize and endorse.

[1213]

One that I think fits this bill is Paul's view on eating food sacrificed to false gods. He doesn't seem to have a problem with it if it doesn't have a negative effect over a fellow believer's faith. ..

We can think the food is cleaned by God and therefore is no longer wrong.

But a voice answered me the second time out of heaven, 'What God has cleansed, don't you call unclean.'
Acts 11:9

[1213]

When he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," he of course abrogated the Commandment against adultery, as no true Jew would, nor any true believer in Yahweh.

Are you claiming that all powerful God can’t forgive sins, or give right to forgive sins?

Anyway, why didn’t they stone the woman, if they taught they have right for it and it would have been unlawful to not judge?

Then there is the Commandment against putting other Gods before Yahweh and graven images, which Jesus broke in one statement:
"Render to Caesar, what is Caesars, and to God what is God's."…

Bible doesn’t say coins are graven images and therefore that contradiction is only in your claim, not in the Bible. And if they were, it would have been wrong from Jesus to say that they could keep the graven images. So, Jesus answered wisely and correctly.

[1213]

Moses by symptoms:
Heard voices.

This leads to question, are you deaf, or do you hear voices?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

The first century Christians (including Paul) were aware that Christians were no longer under obligation to observe the Mosaic law. Rather that that law had been abolished in favor of "the law of Christ".

Thus Christians were free to eat anything they wanted (with the exception of that which contained blood). As Paul pointed out then, the major consideration for a Christian would not be the mandates of the Mosaic law but rather if it were to unduly upset others.

So as long as "others" are not "upset" the Christian can do whatever he or she wants? Promiscuity, theft, violence, gluttony are just fine as long as no one finds out? The "others" can't be upset if they don't know about it. This appears to contradict Jesus when he warns "your Father who sees in secret" and when Jesus calls mere desire to sin, sin.
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
__ Matthew 5:28

Christians, some of them (including Paul) appear to think they can break any of God's supposed 'laws' simply by choosing which ones they want to break.`

[shnarkle]

When he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," he of course abrogated the Commandment against adultery, as no true Jew would, nor any true believer in Yahweh.

Could you elaborate on this claim? I'm not sure I follow what you're talking about here. Are you referring to the commandment against adultery itself, or the penalty for violation of the commandment, or both, or something else?

Then there is the Commandment against putting other Gods before Yahweh and graven images, which Jesus broke in one statement:
"Render to Caesar, what is Caesars, and to God what is God's."
You probably do not know, Caesar was a god,..."

I know that the Caesars were usually viewed as gods shortly after their deaths, and on at least one occastion while they were still living, but you're right in saying I don't know any gods, especially one that was, but no longer is one.

... and primitive languages are contextual, so Jesus was literally putting one god before Yahweh.

Once again, you've lost me. I don't see how the context of Jesus' statement in Aramaic or Koine Greek suggests that Jesus believed that Caesar was a god. Could you fill in the blanks for me?

You probably also do not know the coins that Jesus was speaking of were graven images of other deities.

What I don't know is how a coin with a Roman deity which is coined by the Roman empire suggests that Jesus is violating the first commandment. Could you provide some reason for this as well?

So Jesus has no respect for three Commandments.
These can be excused, but not explained.

Well that's not very helpful. I was really looking for an explanation as to why you feel that Jesus was disrespecting those three commandments. I'm not impressed with your admitted excuses either. ':D'

[shnarkle]

One that I think fits this bill is Paul's view on eating food sacrificed to false gods. He doesn't seem to have a problem with it if it doesn't have a negative effect over a fellow believer's faith. ..

We can think the food is cleaned by God and therefore is no longer wrong.

We can think about water, but it won't quench our thirst. There's a problem with this idea that God is going around cleaning food; he isn't. This idea stems from conflating an unclean animal with food. There is nothing that I know of in any of the biblical texts that suggests that an unclean animal is food in the first place. When food goes bad it is unclean. Do you eat rotten food? Do you think it is wrong to eat food that is rotten?

But a voice answered me the second time out of heaven, 'What God has cleansed, don't you call unclean.'
Acts 11:9

Here again, one needs to look at the context, and even more importantly the explicitly articulated interpretation of Peter's vision.

Here it is:

Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Peter says nothing about unclean food becoming clean. There is nothing anywhere in these texts that suggests that God also decided to arbitrarily change the dietary laws.

A Symbol can never be subsituted for itself as this would negate the definition and purpose of the Symbol. The word associated with the figure Symbol is "substitution". What would happen if we were to apply your method of interpretation to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement? When we say that Christ is the lamb slain for our sin, we could just as easily say that when we sacrifice a lamb our sins are forgiven.

Another word for a Symbol would be "sign". When you are driving your automobile down the street and you see a yellow sign with two black stick figures between two horizontal lines, would you interpret that sign to be indicating that there is a crosswalk up ahead or two black stick figures between two horizontal parallel lines on a yellow sign?

If the Symbol is just as legitimate as what is signified, then what are we to make of a car which crashes into a pedestrian crossing sign? Do we arrest the driver for vehicular homicide?

Moreover, Paul has just been instructed to "Kill and eat". When he arrives at Cornelius' house and informs them of the interpretation of his vision, can we use your method of interpretation to assusme that it is now okay to kill and eat gentiles?

We could also just as easily assume that we are now instructed to spread the gospel to all of the unclean animals in the world. After all we have plenty of examples from the Mosaic law informing us that clean animals are to be allowed to keep the law, e.g. do not work your lifestock on the Sabbath; the repentance of livestock in Ninevah etc.

Are you proclaiming the gospel to swine?

[Willum]

When he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," he of course abrogated the Commandment against adultery, as no true Jew would, nor any true believer in Yahweh.

Could you elaborate on this claim? I'm not sure I follow what you're talking about here. Are you referring to the commandment against adultery itself, or the penalty for violation of the commandment, or both, or something else?

Sure, the punishment for adultery according to the Old Testament is stoning. When Jesus stopped it, he blasphemed against God, as no Jew would.

Then there is the Commandment against putting other Gods before Yahweh and graven images, which Jesus broke in one statement:
"Render to Caesar, what is Caesars, and to God what is God's."
You probably do not know, Caesar was a god,..."

I know that the Caesars were usually viewed as gods shortly after their deaths, and on at least one occasion while they were still living, but you're right in saying I don't know any gods, especially one that was, but no longer is one.

So, it is OK to put false Gods before Yahweh, but not real ones, got it!
Errm, what would be an example of a real god to put before Yahweh? and failing that, what does the Commandment mean?

... and primitive languages are contextual, so Jesus was literally putting one god before Yahweh.

Once again, you've lost me. I don't see how the context of Jesus' statement in Aramaic or Koine Greek suggests that Jesus believed that Caesar was a god. Could you fill in the blanks for me?

Sure: It doesn't matter what Jesus believed, it was what his audience believed: There were two peoples in his audience: Jews, who would hear, pay to the God Caesar what is Caesar's, and pay to the God Yahweh what its his. Since this would have been said just a stone throw away from temples dedicated to the Roman gods, this would have incensed the Jews to kill Jesus. Which they did.
Now the other members of the audience, gentiles, like yourself, would have seen the wisdom of just paying the tax, and recognizing that it was no big deal to respect both gods.

You probably also do not know the coins that Jesus was speaking of were graven images of other deities.

What I don't know is how a coin with a Roman deity which is coined by the Roman empire suggests that Jesus is violating the first commandment. Could you provide some reason for this as well?

What I don't know is how you could possibly think it was OK! The gods of Rome preferred form of worship was coin. Those coins were graven images of gods. By paying the Roman tax you were honoring a false god's demands, before Yahweh's. Unless you think it is OK to put FALSE gods before Yahweh?
Do you think it is OK to worship false gods before Yahweh?

So Jesus has no respect for three Commandments.
These can be excused, but not explained.

Well that's not very helpful. I was really looking for an explanation as to why you feel that Jesus was disrespecting those three commandments. I'm not impressed with your admitted excuses either. ':D'

Welp. it is not up to me to explain it, and my excuse is it shows beyond doubt Jesus was a ill-conceived fiction.