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.

[Goose]

Please expand on that. Someone can be justified in the eye of God and still end up in hell?

Are you asking about on the final day of judgement? I don’t see why someone who was justified in the eye of God on the day of judgment would end up in hell.

Sure, but that difference is moot to me since one is justified by faith, faith leads to salvation and salvation is through the grace of God. They are all terms used in a single concept.

I can't stop you from conflating terms if you wish. I can only point out that you are and that each term has a different meaning.

That's why I asked you if "πι�στις without works" is a coherent concept in a previous post, and you said yes. Now you are telling me in James' mind there is no such thing.

Rather than assume this is just being pedantic I will assume you have forgotten (it has been a few days after all) that I explained my position quite clearly regarding the different kinds of πι�στις (one of which implies good works, one of which doesn’t) in this post.

So now we have to resolve the issue of whether Paul said (A) alone could get you into heaven, right?

It wouldn’t matter even if he did. Paul said (A) justifies. And you agree (A->B). So he doesn’t have to say (A->B). He just needs to say (A). And he does. And besides Paul never says “(A) alone� as in (A) without good works anyway. He says faith (A) and not the works of the law (C). He says (A) and ~(C).

I don't think that's matters, I don't care one way or the other. My original point was Paul say (A) alone gets you into heaven. James is saying (A) & (B) gets you into heaven, granted James is also said (A->B.)

Why are you continuing to make this erroneous statement that “Paul says (A) alone gets you into heaven�? Paul never says “faith alone� as in faith without good works. He just says we are justified by faith apart from the law. (A) and ~(C).

That wasn't what I had in mind, but it is an interesting point. Does A->B hold when someone can die with A without having done any B?

Of course. Why wouldn’t it? Think of it this way. If a Lamborghini implies high speed does that still hold even if the owner of a Lamborghini never drives it over 40mph? Does it cease being a Lamborghini in that case?

So Paul is saying (A) but not (B)?

Nope. He’s saying (A) and ~(C). We’ve been over this. Paul never says (A) and ~(B). And he affirms (A->B) throughout his letters as I’ve shown.

He also said faith and not work.

No. Paul said faith without the works of the law. Paul specifically uses νο�μου (law) in Romans 3:28. Paul is not talking about good works borne out of love such as feeding the hungry like James is.

“…ἔ�γων νο�μου.�
“…works of the law.�

You are continually conflating two completing different concepts into “works� as though they were the same thing in order to manufacture a contradiction.

1. James is talking about (B): good works borne out of love such as feeding the hungry etc (James 2:15-16).
2. In Romans 3:28 Paul is talking about (C): the works of keeping the Mosaic Law.

These aren’t the same thing.

So now we have two contradictions?

Huh?

The bolded bit, pending on your response on being justified vs being saved above:

13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

To me that says, if you want to get to heaven then follow the law.

But how are you getting B->C here? How are you getting good works implies keeping the Mosaic Law?

And Paul isn’t making a universal theological declaration about how one is justified here in Romans 2:13. He’s pointing out the state of affairs prior to the Gospel.

You aren’t taking into account the context of the first two chapters where Paul is talking about the ungodly and how they will be judged. Paul is putting into perspective the state of affairs for Jews and gentiles prior to the Gospel. That they are under the Law. Jews are under the Mosaic Law and gentiles under the moral Law written on their hearts (Romans 2:13). Paul’s point in the opening two chapters is how righteousness came through the law. After making his case in the first two chapters for how things were prior to Jesus Paul then introduces the idea that there is now (after Jesus) another way to be justified. Paul says...

�But now a righteousness of God has been revealed apart from Law, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets; even the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ, toward all and upon all those who believe.� – Romans 3:21-22

Your argument assumes Paul would say we are all justified by keeping the law (Romans 2:13). That he affirms (C).

Then, one chapter later, would directly contradict himself by saying we are all justified not by the law (Romans 3:28). That he affirms ~(C).

That’s a very uncharitable assumption. As with most of these contradiction arguments, that assumption doesn’t take into account the build up context to Romans 3:28. As I've been saying along these arguments are simply taking pithy verses out of context and juxtaposing them. Then it's declared, "Aha, a contradiction!"

[Bust Nak]

Are you asking about on the final day of judgement? I don’t see why someone who was justified in the eye of God on the day of judgment would end up in hell.

Then why did you say being justified doesn't necessarily mean one is going to heaven?

I can't stop you from conflating terms if you wish. I can only point out that you are and that each term has a different meaning.

Still not interested in semantics.

Rather than assume this is just being pedantic...

You don't get to call people pedantic when you are objecting to my conflating of terms of being justified and saved when you don't don’t see why someone justified would end up in hell.

I will assume you have forgotten (it has been a few days after all) that I explained my position quite clearly regarding the different kinds of πι�στις (one of which implies good works, one of which doesn’t) in this post.

Why would you think I have forgotten? That's is exactly why I asked you if "πι�στις without works" is a coherent concept in a previous post, and you said yes. Now you are telling me in James' mind there is no such thing. What with this seemingly trivial inconsistence?

It wouldn’t matter even if he did. Paul said (A) justifies. And you agree (A->B). So he doesn’t have to say (A->B). He just needs to say (A).

You don't see a problem with him saying an explicit (A) alone?

And besides Paul never says “(A) alone� as in (A) without good works anyway. He says faith (A) and not the works of the law (C). He says (A) and ~(C).

That's debatable but I don't see the point going that far when the bigger issue here is whether (A) alone contradicts with (A->B.)

Why are you continuing to make this erroneous statement that “Paul says (A) alone gets you into heaven�? Paul never says “faith alone� as in faith without good works. He just says we are justified by faith apart from the law. (A) and ~(C).

Whether it is erroneous or not depends on your doctrinal beliefs. We are not talking about doctrine here.

Of course. Why wouldn’t it? Think of it this way. If a Lamborghini implies high speed does that still hold even if the owner of a Lamborghini never drives it over 40mph? Does it cease being a Lamborghini in that case?

No, it just mean the statement "Lamborghini implies high speed" is false.

Nope. He’s saying (A) and ~(C). We’ve been over this. Paul never says (A) and ~(B). And he affirms (A->B) throughout his letters as I’ve shown.

So you are saying ~(~C-> ~B)?

No. Paul said faith without the works of the law. Paul specifically uses νο�μου (law) in Romans 3:28. Paul is not talking about good works borne out of love such as feeding the hungry like James is.

“…ἔ�γων νο�μου.�
“…works of the law.�

You are continually conflating two completing different concepts into “works� as though they were the same thing in order to manufacture a contradiction.

It's not me doing it, the Bible says to follow the law.

But how are you getting B->C here? How are you getting good works implies keeping the Mosaic Law?

It is saying B=C, which trivially implies B->C.

And Paul isn’t making a universal theological declaration about how one is justified here in Romans 2:13. He’s pointing out the state of affairs prior to the Gospel...

Which is why I asked you if at least at one point in time for Jews, B->C? And you said no.

Your argument assumes Paul would say we are all justified by keeping the law (Romans 2:13). That he affirms (C).

Then, one chapter later, would directly contradict himself by saying we are all justified not by the law (Romans 3:28). That he affirms ~(C).

That’s a very uncharitable assumption. As with most of these contradiction arguments, that assumption doesn’t take into account the build up context to Romans 3:28. As I've been saying along these arguments are simply taking pithy verses out of context and juxtaposing them. Then it's declared, "Aha, a contradiction!"

Right, and hence my original point: Christians are the ones doing that, except with the goal of declaring "Aha, no contradiction!" I don't care one bit whether it's grace + works or grace alone.

[Goose]

Then why did you say being justified doesn't necessarily mean one is going to heaven?

Because it doesn’t. It depends on the context. That’s why I asked about the final day of judgment. For example, are former sincere Christians who have discarded their faith, turned against God, and become evangelical atheists justified in the eye of God? I would say no.

Still not interested in semantics.

Fine. But it’s not semantics.

You don't get to call people pedantic when you are objecting to my conflating of terms of being justified and saved when you don't don’t see why someone justified would end up in hell.

But I specifically did not call you or anyone else pedantic. I chose to assume you had forgotten what I wrote. Apparently that assumption was wrong?

Why would you think I have forgotten?

Because I want to try to initially give people the benefit of the doubt and think the best of them. I think the assumption someone had forgotten the content of a post written a week prior is a much kinder assumption than the assumption of being deliberately pedantic. But I now see the kinder assumption was probably wrong.

That's is exactly why I asked you if "πι�στις without works" is a coherent concept in a previous post, and you said yes. Now you are telling me in James' mind there is no such thing. What with this seemingly trivial inconsistence?

There is no inconsistency on my part on this point. I’ve been very clear about this from the beginning and I don’t see how you could think I’m being inconsistent if you were aware of my previous posts.

But I’ll explain it one last time in the event you have misunderstood me. In the mind of James there are different kinds of πι�στις (faith). There is the kind that is talk only (James 2:14). A kind of πι�στις (faith) that does not produce good works. Then there is the kind of πι�στις (faith) that produces good works (2:18). It’s the latter kind which is alive, working, and is real faith. The kind of faith that James thinks justifies (2:24). It’s this kind of real living faith that, in the mind of James, is not separated from good works.

You don't see a problem with him saying an explicit (A) alone?

When you say “explicit (A) alone� do you mean just (A) or do you mean “(A) alone� as in “faith alone� as in a faith which does not produce good works? If it’s the latter then you need to provide a quote where Paul says “faith alone.�

If it’s the former, then why would it be a problem to just say (A)? James says just (A) as well (James 1:3, 2:1). Is James contradicting himself too then? And let’s not forget Paul affirms A->B elsewhere in his letters which gives us insight into what Paul means when he says (A).

That's debatable but I don't see the point going that far when the bigger issue here is whether (A) alone contradicts with (A->B.)

Well since you think this is the bigger issue then please go ahead and show how (A) contradicts (A->B). While you are at it, you may as well go ahead and show where Paul says “faith alone� if you can rather than simply asserting that he does.

Whether it is erroneous or not depends on your doctrinal beliefs. We are not talking about doctrine here.

Right, we are not talking doctrine here. We are talking about whether the texts contradict. And it seems to me your entire argument hinges on Paul saying “faith alone� as in a faith that doesn’t produce good works. But Paul never says “faith alone.� Yet you continue to assert that he does. Please show where he does or stop making this assertion.

No, it just mean the statement "Lamborghini implies high speed" is false.

Why is that?

If a car is a Lamborghini, then it can drive at high speeds. How is that false because the owner of a Lamborghini never drives his Lamborghini over 40mph? Either Lamborghinis are fast or they are not. The speed a particular owner chooses to drive his Lamborghini is irrelevant to whether or not Lamborghinis are can drive at high speed.

So you are saying ~(~C-> ~B)?

I’m saying that Paul is saying (A) and ~(C). I’m also saying Paul affirms A->B as James does.

It's not me doing it, the Bible says to follow the law.

Well I don’t see you disputing the argument that Paul is specifically talking about the law (C) in Romans 3:28 and James is talking about good works (B). In fact you entirely ignored that point which I think is the salient one.

In light of that, I think we are close to being done here.

It is saying B=C, which trivially implies B->C.

No it doesn’t. Good works aren’t even mentioned in Romans 2:13 or any surrounding verses. Where do you get this idea that Romans 2:13 says good works equals keeping the Mosaic law? How does feeding the hungry equate to not touching a woman on her menstrual cycle? How does the former imply the latter? This seems to be a blatant non-sequitur.

Which is why I asked you if at least at one point in time for Jews, B->C? And you said no.

Right, I said no. Good deeds (As James understands good deeds) has never implied keeping the Mosaic Law. And how does your question address my argument that in Romans 2:13 Paul is making his case for the state affairs prior to the Gospel?

Right, and hence my original point: Christians are the ones doing that, except with the goal of declaring "Aha, no contradiction!" I don't care one bit whether it's grace + works or grace alone.

How can I be doing that when I’m the one trying to take into account the greater context of the verses? Whereas you appear not to be?

Look, even when we rip out their context the pithy verses from James 2:24 and Romans 3:28 and juxtapose them there still is no explicit contradiction. I’ve shown that. So there must be some assumptions being made on the part of the one arguing for a contradiction between Paul and James. For example, when Paul says “works� in Romans 3:28 he means the same kind of “works� that James means. But when we look at the surrounding context of the verses we see those assumptions are false. And when we go further afield taking into account the entire corpus of Paul’s letters we begin see that there is a fair amount of harmony between Paul and James. Granted, it may need some unpacking. But that harmany is there. But none of this seems to matter much. Full steam ahead, it’s a contradiction!

I think we are nearing the end here. I think we've made the main arguments. I may not respond further unless I feel there is something argued that overturns what I've already argued.

[Bust Nak]

Because it doesn’t. It depends on the context. That’s why I asked about the final day of judgment. For example, are former sincere Christians who have discarded their faith, turned against God, and become evangelical atheists justified in the eye of God? I would say no.

Unless you are suggesting these evangelical atheists are heading to heaven, I don't see how that changes anything. You say these atheists are not justified and I am guessing they are not going to heaven, you still have the 1:1 correlation with being justified and going to heaven.

Fine. But it’s not semantics.

So you keep insisting, but what do you call what you said above if not semantics? Being justified means going to heaven but equating being justified and salvation is somehow a big no no, I would call it semantics.

But I specifically did not call you or anyone else pedantic. I chose to assume you had forgotten what I wrote. Apparently that assumption was wrong?

Yes the assumption was wrong.

Because I want to try to initially give people the benefit of the doubt and think the best of them. I think the assumption someone had forgotten the content of a post written a week prior is a much kinder assumption than the assumption of being deliberately pedantic. But I now see the kinder assumption was probably wrong.

But why would you even think that these either one of two options would apply in the first place? Couldn't I have remembered exactly what you stated and still have a genuine (i.e. non pedantic) problem with it?

There is no inconsistency on my part on this point. I’ve been very clear about this from the beginning and I don’t see how you could think I’m being inconsistent if you were aware of my previous posts.

Because you first said "πι�στις without works" is a coherent concept in a previous post and now you are seemingly saying it's not possible as the right kind of faith always produces works.

But I’ll explain it one last time in the event you have misunderstood me. In the mind of James there are different kinds of πι�στις (faith). There is the kind that is talk only (James 2:14). A kind of πι�στις (faith) that does not produce good works. Then there is the kind of πι�στις (faith) that produces good works (2:18).

Woah there. That's not what you said before. You said πι�στις is the kind of faith produces good works, while πιστευ�ω is the kind of faith that does not produce good works. If that wasn't what you meant then that would explain what I saw as inconsistent.

When you say “explicit (A) alone� do you mean just (A) or do you mean “(A) alone� as in “faith alone� as in a faith which does not produce good works? If it’s the latter then you need to provide a quote where Paul says “faith alone.�

I meant the latter.

Well since you think this is the bigger issue then please go ahead and show how (A) contradicts (A->B).

You are missing the premise !B here.

While you are at it, you may as well go ahead and show where Paul says “faith alone� if you can rather than simply asserting that he does.

What's the point if you can't even accept that "faith alone" as opposed to just (A) contradict (A & B?)

Right, we are not talking doctrine here. We are talking about whether the texts contradict.

Right, so stop trying to dispute what the text say with your doctrine.

And it seems to me your entire argument hinges on Paul saying “faith alone� as in a faith that doesn’t produce good works. But Paul never says “faith alone.� Yet you continue to assert that he does. Please show where he does or stop making this assertion.

Again, what's the point when you won't even accept that faith alone contradicts with faith and works?

Why is that?

Because you have a counter example of Lamborghini that has not done any high speed.

If a car is a Lamborghini, then it can drive at high speeds. How is that false because the owner of a Lamborghini never drives his Lamborghini over 40mph?

Note the difference between "can" and "implies."

Either Lamborghinis are fast or they are not. The speed a particular owner chooses to drive his Lamborghini is irrelevant to whether or not Lamborghinis are can drive at high speed.

Lamborghinis are can drive at high speed but isn't being driven at high speed is decidedly not fast.

I’m saying that Paul is saying (A) and ~(C). I’m also saying Paul affirms A->B as James does.

I don't see how that helps you if you are not also saying ~(~C-> ~B.)

Well I don’t see you disputing the argument that Paul is specifically talking about the law (C) in Romans 3:28 and James is talking about good works (B). In fact you entirely ignored that point which I think is the salient one.

I am ignoring it because it doesn't help without ~(~C-> ~B.)

No it doesn’t. Good works aren’t even mentioned in Romans 2:13 or any surrounding verses. Where do you get this idea that Romans 2:13 says good works equals keeping the Mosaic law?

The rest of the Bible says it. You are not supposed to cherry pick individual verses.

How does feeding the hungry equate to not touching a woman on her menstrual cycle? How does the former imply the latter? This seems to be a blatant non-sequitur.

I don't know why there is a blatant non-sequitur in the Bible, I didn't write it, ask God.

Right, I said no. Good deeds (As James understands good deeds) has never implied keeping the Mosaic Law. And how does your question address my argument that in Romans 2:13 Paul is making his case for the state affairs prior to the Gospel?

What is the purpose of the 10 commandment if not even Jews have to follow them? The point was it the Mosaic laws was obviously meant to followed if you want to get into heaven.

How can I be doing that when I’m the one trying to take into account the greater context of the verses? Whereas you appear not to be?

Perhaps you should consider the scenario where I am the one trying to take into account the greater context of the verses, whereas you appear not to be?

Look, even when we rip out their context the pithy verses from James 2:24 and Romans 3:28 and juxtapose them there still is no explicit contradiction. I’ve shown that.

Only if you assme that faith means different things in different verses, as you assume works means different things in different verses below...

So there must be some assumptions being made on the part of the one arguing for a contradiction between Paul and James. For example, when Paul says “works� in Romans 3:28 he means the same kind of “works� that James means.

... Are we still talking about ripping verses out their context here? If so why on Earth would you not assume works means works?

But when we look at the surrounding context of the verses we see those assumptions are false. And when we go further afield taking into account the entire corpus of Paul’s letters we begin see that there is a fair amount of harmony between Paul and James.

Hey, you were the one who is granting that we be allowed to rip things out of context. Looking at other verses for clarification is not ripping things out of context.

Granted, it may need some unpacking. But that harmany is there. But none of this seems to matter much. Full steam ahead, it’s a contradiction!

What is this so called unpacking, if not interpeting it to form your doctrine? Other Christians have found harmany exacpt in the opposite direction.

I think we are nearing the end here. I think we've made the main arguments. I may not respond further unless I feel there is something argued that overturns what I've already argued.

Sure, I like having the last words.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

They are all significant, because the Bible is written by a god (or inspired by a god, depending on the person/sect you refer to), and that being is supposed to be perfect and all good and all love and omni this and that. Even one contradiction makes no sense given the supposed characteristics that the Bible lists.