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.

[JehovahsWitness]

[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.


JW

[shnarkle]

[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".

I've heard these assertions before, and what I've found is that in each and every example provided as evidence, what is presented invariably always concerns justification or establishing one's own righteousness, and the sacrificial system, e.g. "the curse"; those laws which "were added because of transgresions" etc. The problem with this analysis is that it conflates the keeping of the Mosaic law with the penalty for violating the Mosaic law.

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.

I don't think so, and this assertion makes no sense on the face of it, especially when one considers that much of what Paul said upset quite a few people, and still does to this very day. Jesus went "beast mode" on people. He called them "fools"; "a brood of vipers" etc. He trolled the scribes and Pharisees by repeatedly asking them "Haven't you read what it says in the book of Moses"? They had it memorized, and didn't take the insolence from this up and coming new kid on the block lightly either.

My freedom of action and speech doesn't end where you may become offended. If that was the case we'd all be silent for the rest of our lives.

[Willum]

Though it does not surprise me Paul manipulates a blasphemous view of eating unclean foods, but this is a very minor contradiction.

The biggies are done by Jesus:
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.

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, and primitive languages are contextual, so Jesus was literally putting one god before Yahweh.
You probably also do not know the coins that Jesus was speaking of were graven images of other deities.

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

[JehovahsWitness]

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

Did I say it does?

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.

[Hawkins]

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.

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

OT Law is a set of Law we call Mosaic Law. It is a set of Law 'attached' to a covenant granted to the Jews via Moses. Each covenant has a scope of humans under its coverage. The covenant with Mosaic Law attached is only applicable to the Jews.

Paul is an apostle sent for the gentiles. Food laws are outside the scope to be applicable to the gentiles.

Let me draw you the big picture.

In order to build an eternity we call heaven, a set of Law (a rather absolute set of Law) was set up for the qualifying of both angels and humans to enter the future heaven. This set of Law is applicable to both angels and humans. Ultimately this set of Law will be used to judge both angels and humans. In Eden, both Satan and Adam broke this set of Law. Since then humans have been driven out of Eden (God's realm) and to live the earthly life (outside God's realm, and literally can be considered as Satan's realm).

Then from Adam to Noah, it's proven (with all angels as witnesses) that humans won't pass the judgment of Law (the set applicable to both angels and humans). They have no hope to enter the future heaven. God's plan of bringing humans to heaven was thus defeated. The earth together with everything in it shall thus be destroyed (by water). That's Noah's story.

However God has a "plan B" to go. Through the future blood shed of Jesus Christ, God can thus grant a series of covenants to the different scope of humans in different time periods to bring salvation to them. The first covenant was granted to Noah. Covenants are made through the blood of Jesus Christ and are only applicable to humans but not angels. Angels don't have such a 'second chance' to be saved. Noah's covenant is applicable to all mankind.

The it came the Mosaic covenant with the set of Mosaic Law. This covenant together with its Law is only applicable to the Jews and converts, but not gentiles. Of course, it's not applicable to the angels.

A covenant is composed of several main components, namely, the core commandments, the Law part and the Grace part.

Most core commandments can be common to each and every covenants though different covenants are to be granted to different human and time scope. It is said that there are the 10 such core commandments in the Mosaic covenant. 9 out of these 10 commandments are also in the so-called New Covenant brought to us by Jesus Himself directly. Sabbath is a core commandment in the Mosaic covenant but absent in the New Covenant. Food Law and such are laws 'attached' to the Mosaic covenant. It's not part of the New Covenant.

On the other hand, all laws regardless which covenant they are 'attached' to are considered to be good. So you choose to stick to those laws under certain circumstances where you see fit to apply. You can also choose to be against these laws under the circumstance that when some of Jews emphasize these laws to say that humans need to obey these OT laws in order to be saved. You are on the against side because it's not true that humans need to obey these laws in order to be saved. Only the Jews under the scope of the Mosaic covenant need to obey them strictly.


Paul was given a difficult job in a difficult position simply because most churches under his ministry were a mixture of Jews and gentiles. The Jews held the old customs. Some of them insisted on observing the old laws in a strict and absolute sense. That's something Paul has to fight against. On the other hand, Paul is not supposed to offend the Jews Christians unnecessarily. So in certain area he allows the Jews (and gentiles) to observe some old Jewish customs, as long as they won't say that these customs need to be observed strictly in order to be saved. If Paul chooses not to compromise at all, most Jewish Christians may be offended unnecessarily and choose to leave the churches.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 6 by Hawkins]

Well, even this isn't a problem when we realize that Moses was a paranoid-schizophrenic, who was violent, delusional, and possessing all those characteristics of the mentally ill.
Without a single bit of evidence to the contrary.

[Hawkins]

[Replying to post 6 by Hawkins]

Well, even this isn't a problem when we realize that Moses was a paranoid-schizophrenic, who was violent, delusional, and possessing all those characteristics of the mentally ill.
Without a single bit of evidence to the contrary.

What evidence do you have that he is so, other than your own fabrications?

This is the kind of question you apply often to Christianity.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 8 by Hawkins]

Errm, my own fabrications?
Look up Moses behavior.
Compare it to P-S.

P-S

Moses by symptoms:
Heard voices.
Had hallucinations.
Suffered delusions.
Was violent when his beliefs were confronted.

Which is more likely?
Which is impossible?

You see all contradictions of Moses are removed by the simple plausible assumption that he was mentally unstable.

QED.

[Divine Insight]

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

Many "believers" don't seem to be phased by any inconsistencies or contradictions pointed out to them in the Bible.

I feel that there are far too many to mention briefly in a post. But I'll offer the following two as a couple I feel are extremely problematic for Biblical theology.

The Canaanites had supposedly rejected God yet they were clearly still sacrificing their babies to God.

This is an extreme problem for a monotheistic religion. It would not be a problem for a monotheistic religion that actually holds that there are indeed many Gods.

Why is it a problem for a monotheistic religion?

Well, if the Canaanites understood that Yahweh, Jehovah, (or whatever people want to call the God of the Old testament) was indeed their creator, and the creator of all that exists, AND they had decided to refuse to obey him. Then they would know that there are no other Gods to which they could appease by sacrificing their babies to.

The mere fact that the Canaanites were sacrificing their babies to Baal, proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that, at the very least, they could not have understood that Yahweh or Jehovah was indeed the one true God.

This kind of ignorance is unacceptable IMHO, because if this were the situation, then Yahweh himself would know it. And if he knew it than he would know that the Canaanites had misunderstood the situation. Moreover Yahweh would be the only entity who could clarify the situation. There's no way that it would be reasonable to expect the confused Canaanites to repair the misunderstanding.

Therefore this story of the Canaanites "rejecting God", and going off to sacrifice their babies to appease another "God" that doesn't even exist, is absolute nonsense. It demonstrates an extreme contradiction in a monotheistic theology.

This would only make sense in a polytheistic setting. And that probably was the case when this ancient story was written.

So the story of the Canaanites is an extreme contradiction for a supposedly monotheistic religion. The God of the Bible would need to be a complete idiot to have created such a confused situation that the Canaanites didn't even know that they had reject the only God that actually exists. So this is a deadly serious contradiction, IMHO.

Here's another one:

The Biblical God drowns out sinners when Jesus is the only possible way to salvation

According to Christianity Jesus is the only possible way for men to obtain salvation, and this is because it was supposedly necessary for the "unblemished sin-free lamb of God", to die to pay for the sins of men.

Well, if that's the case, then this should have necessarily been true from the very beginning. And therefore drowning sinners out via a Great Flood would have been an absolutely futile event that would have served no purpose at all.

In short, Christianity is simply not compatible with the Old Testament tales. Christ as the only way to salvation is not compatible with drowning sinners out.

Moreover, if this was the plan from the very beginning, then Adam and Even should have been giving the option to accept Christ as their savior as well, right there in the Garden of Eden.

So Christianity is a "train-wrecked" religion. It's been totally derailed from the original Old Testament stories.

I could go on. In fact, there are too many too mention.

Christ being raised from the dead in a wounded physical body is also a contradiction in several ways. For one thing raising Christ from the dead without healing his body to pristine condition makes no sense in terms of a magical God who can supposedly do such miraculous feats. The fact, that rumors of Jesus have him surviving the crucifixion complete with his wounds suggests that he was merely a mortal man who survived a botched crucifixion. This makes even more sense since this wasn't an official Roman crucifixion in any case, according to the Gospel rumors.

Secondly, along the same lines. Jesus then ascends to a "spiritual" heaven taking his wounded physical body with him like as if he's going to need that body when he gets to heaven. That's a contradiction as well.

Then the Gospels have Jesus sitting down at the right-hand of God. That's proclaiming Jesus to be a demigod, not God himself. The Gospels don't have Jesus returning to heaven to become God himself. They clearly have him sitting at the right hand of God.

They also clearly thought of heaven as being in outer space. They had Jesus 'ascending' to heaven in the sky. If heaven is an actual spiritual place in a totally higher-dimensional plane, it would have made more sense for Jesus to have just faded away. But of course, they didn't want to make that claim because that would have made Jesus seem more like a Ghost. It was clearly important to the authors of these rumors that Jesus be seen as a physically resurrected human who was "raised up to heaven" in the sky.

I think the contradictions contains in these stories reveal clearly that this entire religion is nothing more than a fictitious superstitious mythology.

Was Jesus a real person? He probably was. But just like Elvis Presley. Elvis was a real person too, but that doesn't mean that every story told about Elvis is true, including the stories of people having seen him after he had died.

So yeah, there probably was a guy named Jesus that sparked these religious rumors. But it should be clear from the rumors themselves that there are simply too many contradictions for them to be true.

And please note that the contradictions I offered above are only just a few of the many serious contradictions contained in the Biblical Canon.