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.

[Overcomer]

Elijah John wrote:

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

.

Could you please provide specific verses from the Bible to back up both positions for each of your points?

Thanks! O.

[shnarkle]

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.

Could you provide some examples of Paul's negative attitude toward the law?

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.

John's claims don't seem to conflate the fact that the word, which always existed "became" flesh in the incarnation. This is when Jesus was given his name. It seems to me quite logical to point out that one cannot be what they are becoming while they are becoming what they will eventually be. I would have to disagree that there is no notion of his pre-existence when there are so many references to "my father" or his father in heaven.

Now one could make the argument that God only became a father when he begat or created Jesus as the Jehovah's Witness organization claim. I'm not sure I find that argument all that persuasive within the Jewish culture. I can see it quite clearly within a western mindset. He would be no different than an Odysseus or an Achilles. Now that I think of it, I'm not sure exactly how that creates a major conflict except for perhaps converting people from one brand of Christianity to another.

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.

You may have something here, but just off the top of my head I suspect that these divergent positions stem from the fact that when one sins unintentionally or accidentally the remedy is sacrifice, but when one sins intentionally the remedy is "teshuva" or repentance and restitution. Although there is one possible exception that has something to do with the temple or perhaps theft, my memory is failing...

Regardless, if this is the case, then this is just as much a fundamental problem with the law itself as this is a fundamental distinction within the Mosaic law.

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.

I'll go along with the first claim for the time being, but what are some of the examples from the Synoptics that you find most significant in spotlighting his imperfections?

The only thing I can come up with would be is temper, and his ignorance of future events. The first could be construed as one of justifiable righteous indignation at engaging in commercial endeavors in the temple but I think you may have something with him calling people "fools"; that's always kinda bothered me. Ignorance of future events doesn't seem like it would count as John and Paul's perfection is really in respect to his being without sin. For him to be omniscient would negate his existence which would defeat his purpose in coming in his role as messiah.

Ramifications?

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

To say it is blood-based really isn't accurate in that the blood is being put (by the figure Metonymy) for the sacrifice which is being put for his death, which is the penalty or natural consequence of sin. Having said that, I think your assessment of conventional Christianity is accurate.

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.

I agree. However, I can't help wonder if there may be some way to reconcile these two perpsectives into a meaningful whole. I could be wrong, but I don't think it would be that difficult.

Thanks for a thought provoking response to this OP

[shnarkle]

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

A look at the greater context would go a long way towards clearing up some of your confusion. It really can't be overstated enough that this is a Jewish document. Jesus is this up and coming rabbi who is beginning to make waves as a radical. He's a threat to the status quo, and the scribes and Pharisees are ready to see if he can pass the bar exam. We know this because they are presenting a case to test his knowledge of the law. They say that "such" a woman should be stoned, but they never articulate just what kind of woman she is. This is key to understanding the context because they are presenting him with a law that had fallen out of use, if I recall correctly; after the fall of the temple. It's a bit of a trick question.

However, it is only certain aspects of the law that had fallen out of use, the principle was still in force if I remember correctly. Your reference is to Deuteronomy 22:24 which is dealing with an unmarried woman, but this woman is married which is why the other guilty party is conspicuously absent from these proceedings.

Despite the fact that this is a patriarchal society, they would have had no problem bringing the other party and having a "two-fer". I jest, but if we're honest this woman is in no danger of being stoned as Israel is an occupied territory and no longer has the authority to carry out capital punishment. They're standing in the temple grounds which would have had Roman guards assigned as well, and it's just inconceivable to think that they would have just hauled off and stoned anyone anyways. The stones are just for theatrical effect as well as to teach a bigger lesson within the context of John's gospel, but I digress.

Since Jesus knows that this is a married woman, he begins to write the curses as prescribed by the law (no doubt for theatrical effect as well!) in Numbers 5:23.

So, unlike any of us silly goyim who think we know the Mosaic law well enough to know what's really going on here, Jesus passes the test, but John wants to make a big lesson even bigger so he takes it to the next level with the whole "he who is without sin, cast the first stone" line to really put them in their place. This is a wonderful literary device in that they would have dropped the stones anyways, and the statement only makes it seem that they are dropping their stones because of their sinfulness. It's positively brilliant!

So, it is OK to put false Gods before Yahweh, but not real ones, got it!

Perhaps you might go into just the lightest bit of detail in how giving Roman money to a Roman empire is putting a false god before Yahweh. That might go a long way to clearly up this confusion. It's Caesar's money, what does Yahweh want with it?

Errm, what would be an example of a real god to put before Yahweh?

I can't think of a single one. Care to give it a shot?

... and failing that, what does the Commandment mean?

For someone who claimed that Jesus broke the commandment, to then ask what the commandment means that your argument has just fallen into an appeal to ignorance.

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.

The test itself is a pretense to kill Jesus, so it doesn't matter what he says, they're going to kill him anyways; a non sequitur. So it doesn't matter what the audience believed about foreign gods, it matters what Jesus is teaching to his audience. That's the context for his audience as well as John's audience reading the account.

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.

I suppose on a superficial level one could come to that conclusion, but what he's really saying is to give Caesar back his money because you don't need it. You don't need to rely on the providence of Caesar (or Mammon) because you can rely on the providence of God himself without any need for some silly contrived medium of exchange anymore. Look how the coin is equated with the audience. Caesar gets his money while God gets his people. Caesar feels honor from tossing pieces of metal at him while Yahweh is given his chosen people. John's Jesus is drawing some striking parallels here in pointing out who's image is stamped on Caesar's coins verses the image of Yahweh stamped in humanity. Yet another brilliant literary device.

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

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?

So perhaps it might help to break this down a bit first. If the Roman gods preferred form of worship was their coins, then the followers of Yahweh wouldn't have them in their possession in the first place. That would be putting Yahweh's demands before Rome's. Jesus is simply pointing out that if one is relying on that deity, they ought to get rid of pagan paraphenalia and be done with him. Jesus makes this same point in saying that one cannot serve Mammon and Yahweh; pick one. Pretty simple.

Welp. it is not up to me to explain it,...

Yeah, we got that. One can't explain what one can't understand.

and my excuse is it shows beyond doubt Jesus was a ill-conceived fiction.

The narrative does seem to be a quite blatanly fictional account, but your inability to fathom or explain the depth of its meaning suggests some alternative contradictory examples might have been more appropriate than those supported by logical fallacies.

[Danmark]

John's claims don't seem to conflate the fact that the word, which always existed "became" flesh in the incarnation. This is when Jesus was given his name. It seems to me quite logical to point out that one cannot be what they are becoming while they are becoming what they will eventually be. I would have to disagree that there is no notion of his pre-existence when there are so many references to "my father" or his father in heaven.

Perhaps I do not understand your point, but you appear to be saying Jesus could not be God from the beginning, which is the opposite of what John writes:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

[BTW,
I'm not arguing John is correct. I think just the opposite. John is a poetic genius AND a lunatic. He is one of the reasons the Roman Catholic church has to do deep knee bends while performing impossible mental gymnastics in claiming Jesus is fully God, but also completely human. This is a nutty position which apparently the Church felt it needed to agree with to harmonize scripture.]

[Willum]

[Replying to post 23 by shnarkle]
Jesus was never an up and coming rabbi. Jews still have no reverence for him. Indeed, then as now, do you go to a street preacher for justice? NOOO!

Unmarried women can't commit adultery.
Jesus blasphemed.

Perhaps you might go into just the lightest bit of detail in how giving Roman money to a Roman empire is putting a false god before Yahweh.

Here, allow me to rephrase what you said in proper context:
Perhaps you might go into just the lightest bit of detail in how giving a pagan-empowered government's money to a Roman god is putting a false god before Yahweh?
Now please answer the question:
So, it is OK to put false Gods before Yahweh? but not real ones?

So if there are no other real gods, then what is the meaning of the Commandment? It must either refer to real gods, or false gods that are worshiped. Either way, I don't think it is lawful to revere the real/false god Caesar.

The test itself is a pretense to kill Jesus, so it doesn't matter what he says, they're going to kill him anyways; a non sequitur. So it doesn't matter what the audience believed about foreign gods, it matters what Jesus is teaching to his audience.

Absolutely, and the Jews believed he blasphemed, and so killed him. Who are you to argue?

I suppose on a superficial level one could come to that conclusion, but what he's really saying is to give Caesar back his money because you don't need it.

NOOOO! That is what gentiles hear. Not what Jews hear. Jews hear: Give to the God Caesar what is his, before you give to the God Yahweh what is his.
This is in the face of a hostile occupation by an allegedly pagan-god empowered force.
Jesus blasphemed.

So perhaps it might help to break this down a bit first. If the Roman gods preferred form of worship was their coins, then the followers of Yahweh wouldn't have them in their possession in the first place.

The coins required were Rome's coins. With pictures of Tiberius claiming his divinity, and the Goddess Pax on the obverse.

[shnarkle]

[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:

I'm not sure I'm following your argument here. He isn't changing his stance at all. Another way of saying the exact same thing would be to say:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever disbelieves in him shall perish and lose eternal life.

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.

It's probably debatable that it's even a problem to begin with. If we look at the context, Noah is building that boat for what, it must have been something like a century to build that thing, right? They could have repented during that time were that even an option, but the fact is that the text states that:

the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

So if you've become infamous in how wicked you are, and evil has consumed your every thought, do you really want to live to do only evil for the rest of your life? Do you know really evil people who are happy? Are they content? Do they really have anything to live for at all other than doing evil continually? Have you ever heard of the idea of mercifully "putting them out of their misery"?

Even just simply killing all the people would have been a better start. Or how about just killing the actual sinners?

See above. Killing everyone would have meant killing Noah and his family who weren't "evil continually". So as it turns out he actually did kill just those who were "evil continually".

This theme is fairly consistent. In the OT, the god is more about shows of power and destruction...

Fairly consistent? What does that mean? Are you saying that his displays of power are regularly timed, consistent in size, length of time, energy level, what?

Are God's displays of mercy inconsistently ordered? If so, how? If we start right at the beginning we can see that God comes right out and informs Adam and Eve to stay away from that tree. Hey, what more do you want? Short of making them robots, there really isn't any other option. He mercifully points out where the booby trap is and how to stay away from it. He tells Cain that he doesn't have to kill his brother, and then mercifully protects him from harm as he's told to leave (probably also for his own protection against revenge from family members). We've already seen Noah mercifully spared, then there's Abraham who's selected to have descendants numerous as the stars and almost immediately we read that he's so prosperous that he and Lot have to move to make room for their expanding empires of wealth. Jacob pulls some deceptions and God mercifully spares him, and blesses him as well. Then there's Balaam who isn't even an Israelite getting paid to bless Israel. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all get to learn God's ways and dupe their neighbors until it's even codified for their convenience which is then used as their handbook for taking over the Promised Land. A whole lot of blessing going on at least until they get spoiled with their new found wealth.

Then in the new testament, Jesus does quite a bit of apocalyptic preaching which doesn't look good at all. He does plenty of talking about 'eternal torment". He even goes to those same spirits that were wiped out during the flood and proclaims his victory over death. He calls people fools, dogs, and vipers. He thrashes the moneychangers for just making a living, and financially destroys swineherds.

It's not that compelling an argument simply because "consistency" is a relative term, and it would take quite a while to document each and every wrathful act as well as each and every merciful act of God and Jesus. Then one could just tally them all up to see the results. Of course we'd have to then take into consideration that the time span for the God of the Old Testament is considerably longer than the 33 years of Jesus' life. My suspicion is that it's probably just as consistent in the New Testament.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 23 by shnarkle]
Jesus was never an up and coming rabbi.

Sure he was. The texts describe people following him everywhere. Huge crowds of thousands. They even wanted to make him their king.

Jews still have no reverence for him.

He wasn't looking to be revered and even taught that seeking the praise of men was an abomination in God's eyes.

Indeed, then as now, do you go to a street preacher for justice? NOOO!

False dichotomy. Back then as now, they were teaching the Mosaic law, and they were in competition with each other. Jesus wasn't charging for his services and didn't turn anyone away who wasn't serious. They were teaching justice, they weren't carrying out actual court proceedings.

Unmarried women can't commit adultery.

Then the scribes and Pharisees were incorrect in the solution for their test, and your reference to stoning was also incorrect because their (and your) reference is from Deuteronomy, but the case they are bringing before Jesus doesn't include the other guilty party which is necessarily an integral part of THAT case.

Therefore Jesus has seen through their smokescreen and ruled judiciously, and now that you mention it. He's really showing that this is a married woman who has already admittedly been caught secluding herself with other men, and this is even the word John uses (Greek: "autophoro" means "self-detected" But even if it were the other case (which it isn't), the other guilty party would have to be there as well, and without him there's really no case at all. So your theory fails under both scenarios. This is what is so fantastic about these texts, there's no end to the depth of meaning they have when you begin to really unpack them.

Jesus blasphemed.

You aren't advancing an argument by repeating yourself.

giving a pagan-empowered government's money to a Roman god is putting a false god before Yahweh?

And Jesus plainly pointed out that getting rid of it all is giving yourself to Yahweh.

Now please answer the question:
So, it is OK to put false Gods before Yahweh? but not real ones?

This is effectively the "True Scotsman fallacy" so it makes no difference if they're "real" or "false". Giving Roman coinage to the Roman government, i.e. Caesar is to place Yahweh before any other gods. Giving the government back all their money is telling them that you are no longer part of their system anymore.

So if there are no other real gods, then what is the meaning of the Commandment? It must either refer to real gods, or false gods that are worshiped. Either way, I don't think it is lawful to revere the real/false god Caesar.

I agree that's why giving him all of your money informs him that you will no longer be revering him with your tribute. Your contributions will now be exclusively to Yahweh who will take YOU as tribute. Again, this is a brilliant parallel by John.

The test itself is a pretense to kill Jesus, so it doesn't matter what he says, they're going to kill him anyways; a non sequitur. So it doesn't matter what the audience believed about foreign gods, it matters what Jesus is teaching to his audience.

Absolutely, and the Jews believed he blasphemed, and so killed him. Who are you to argue?

I'm one to argue the fact that he was not executed for blasphemy because he was executed for treason. That's what was inscribed and placed on the cross, e.g. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews". I'm one to argue because I just pointed out that you presented a logical fallacy, i.e. a non sequitur. If you think you can prove he was executed for worshipping Caesar (which isn't an offence to begin with, we're all waiting for your evidence. The fact is that if he were worshipping Caesar they never would have touched him or given him another thought as it isn't against the law in the first place. There is no way they would have placed an indictment that said "Jesus of Nazareth worshipped Caesar".

I suppose on a superficial level one could come to that conclusion, but what he's really saying is to give Caesar back his money because you don't need it.

NOOOO! That is what gentiles hear. Not what Jews hear. Jews hear: Give to the God Caesar what is his, before you give to the God Yahweh what is his.
This is in the face of a hostile occupation by an allegedly pagan-god empowered force.
Jesus blasphemed.

Perhaps some Jews heard that, but that's beside the point Jesus and John are making. The point is that having the money in the first place is to place pagan gods before Yahweh. That's what John, the Jew is saying, and that is what matters when we're looking for internal contradictions. I'm not asking for contradictions from your own mind. I'm asking for contradictions from the text.

So perhaps it might help to break this down a bit first. If the Roman gods preferred form of worship was their coins, then the followers of Yahweh wouldn't have them in their possession in the first place.

The coins required were Rome's coins. With pictures of Tiberius claiming his divinity, and the Goddess Pax on the obverse.

Yeah, we got that already. You're not addressing the OP or even the facts to this particular text. The text plainly says, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar, and give to God what is God's" What is God's? The Jewish ear is going to hear all sorts of things in that tightly packed sentence not the least of which is "you are my prized possession" or "you are my own possession" etc. Israel was Yahweh's coin. It was Yahweh who was stamped on their faces. Israel holds value for Yahweh, not some base overinflated metal.

[dianaiad]

......
The narrative does seem to be a quite blatanly fictional account, but your inability to fathom or explain the depth of its meaning suggests some alternative contradictory examples might have been more appropriate than those supported by logical fallacies.

Moderator Comment

Please refrain from personal comments when responding to posts. Thanks.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[shnarkle]

John's claims don't seem to conflate the fact that the word, which always existed "became" flesh in the incarnation. This is when Jesus was given his name. It seems to me quite logical to point out that one cannot be what they are becoming while they are becoming what they will eventually be. I would have to disagree that there is no notion of his pre-existence when there are so many references to "my father" or his father in heaven.

Perhaps I do not understand your point, but you appear to be saying Jesus could not be God from the beginning, which is the opposite of what John writes:

In the beginning was the Word,

You just claimed that John's claim is that Jesus is God from the beginning, right? John does not say: "In the beginning was Jesus"

and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

So far John hasn't said one thing about Jesus being anywhere in the beginning.

All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

So all things are made or created by the word. If Jesus isn't made or created then he basically couldn't have existed at all. The texts say that he did exist, therefore he was made or created.

[BTW,
I'm not arguing John is correct. I think just the opposite. John is a poetic genius AND a lunatic. He is one of the reasons the Roman Catholic church has to do deep knee bends while performing impossible mental gymnastics in claiming Jesus is fully God, but also completely human. This is a nutty position which apparently the Church felt it needed to agree with to harmonize scripture.]

Perhaps. I'm not familiar with those mental gymnastics. However, I am acquanted with these texts and so far I haven't seen John make any claims that Jesus was in the beginning.

[shnarkle]

My freedom of action and speech doesn't end where you may become offended.

Did I say it does?

Yes, you effectively did say it does. You said:

the major consideration for a Christian would not be the mandates of the Mosaic law but rather if it were to unduly upset others.

And given that we're referring to the Mosaic law itself, violations necessarily offend those who the violation is against. e.g. If you commit adultery with someone's wife, they are most likely going to be offended. If you pass judgment on someone and treat them as an inferior by slighting them, then you have offended them. More importantly, God will be offended.

I was talking about the spiritual decisions of Christians who are aware and let themselves be guided by bible principles; you can do as you please.

I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. Are you suggesting that God given laws are not biblical principles?