A new contradiction in the Bible

[Boltzmann Brain]

A disclaimer:

When I say that this is a new contradiction I mean to say that it is something that I've come up with by myself and I've never seen it anywhere. It's possible that it is not new, and that, given its nature, it was realized as an idea but was not proposed publicly back in the ages when the church ruled with violence.

The importance of the new contradiction which I have found is as follows:

While I was in transition from Christian to atheist, I was focused upon contradictions in the Bible. Although I am currently not convinced that the law of non-contradiction, ~(X-~X), is true, I am convinced that if God exists then he intended for the Bible to have no contradictions because ~(X-~X) seems to hold for the scope of the universe which humanity experiences and it is one of the axioms upon which we have based all mathematics, logic, and truth.

Upon presentation of typical Biblical contradictions to Christians, the Christian usually attempts to reduce the issue to that of scribal error (which, given the number of these occurences, ironically contradicts their celebration of the Dead Sea Scrolls and how they are evidence for the phenomenal accuracy of the preservation of the Bible) and then claims that the issue does not matter. Others, however, respond with the question, "Does the age of a certain king being improperly recorded change what Jesus did for you on the cross?"

I certainly think that it does, but I will not bother arguing this point. However my new contradiction which I will present shortly does change what Jesus did on the cross; specifically, it makes the act worthless and insufficient for its purpose. Furthermore there is no way to reduce this issue to that of a scribal error.

The contradiction

My assumptions

Because my intended audience is a Judeo-Christian, I will make the following assumptions:

(1) Jesus' sacrifice was meaningless if Jesus was not sinless. In other words, if Jesus was a sinner, then his death would have meant as much as the death of any other human that ever lived.

(2) Jesus was sinless, that is to say, he observed all laws of the Torah.

I must also make two more assumptions, and I need someone who is familiar with the Torah to verify these:

(3) The "assembly of the Lord," as it was written in the Torah, originally referred to the holy tabernacle, but this was replaced by the temple when Solomon built it. For someone in Jesus' time, the "assembly of the Lord" was Solomon's temple.

(4) The notion of an "illegitimate child" in the Bible, at least as it pertains to a boy, is exactly the same as the notion that we have in English, which may or may not be because Rome adopted Christianity.

My argument

As it is written, Jesus' father was not Joseph. Jesus' mother was Mary. Therefore, Jesus' father was not married to his mother, and so Jesus was an illegitimate child.

This is applicable to Jesus because, according to the Judeo-Christian, Jesus was fully man and fully God. Therefore Jesus was fully man and all rules which apply to a man apply to the human incarnation of Jesus.

I have received two major objections to this:

First, that Jesus is an exception to the definition. I find no reason to believe this. This issue is not addressed in the New Testament (or anywhere in the Bible at all), so there is no claim in the Bible that an exception is being made. Therefore the objection has nothing to do with scripture, and if the objection is not based on scripture then the common definition applies in this case and Jesus is not an exception.

Second, I am asked, "So what? It is not a sin to be an illegitimate child." I suppose that could be true, but we still have the following issue:

Deuteronomy 23:2 states,

"If a person is illegitimate by birth, neither he nor his descendants for ten generations may be admitted to the assembly of the Lord."

However, it is well known that Jesus entered the temple, which is the assembly of the Lord, when he turned over the money tables.

Therefore it follows that Jesus disobeyed the Torah, which is equivalent to saying that Jesus sinned.

Thus by (1) above it follows that his sacrifice was meaningless; it is insufficient to forgive sins.

QED

[bluethread]

A slightly different view point for you to consider. For me it is irrelevant whether the birth of Jesus was a virgin birth or whether Jesus was a sinner in his youth. The mitigating factor is the Holy Spirit. When Jesus came up from the waters of his baptism he received the Holy Spirit. Who he was prior to that point is irrelevant. What he did after receiving the Spirit is what matters. Just as it is in our lives. The fact that Jesus walked in steadfast obedience at the will of the Spirit from the time he received the Spirit until his death is what is important. Jesus points out that no man will see the kingdom of God unless he is born of water as well as the Spirit. Jesus was born of the water of Mary's womb. He was then born to the Spirit at his baptism. From the time of his birth by the Spirit, until his death, he is seen walking a perfect life. What he did prior is irrelevant.

But he went into the temple after receiving the baptism.

No, He went into the temple before the mikvah(baptism), at His bar mitzvah. Remember, they were amazed at His grasp of the Scriptures.

Regarding the mikvah of Yochannan, it's purpose was not for repentance in this case. That is why Yochannan was confused. It was to publically proclaim His prophetic ministry. I do not believe that the Ruach HaKodesh was not with Yeshua before that mikvah.

[Cewakiyelo]

A slightly different view point for you to consider. For me it is irrelevant whether the birth of Jesus was a virgin birth or whether Jesus was a sinner in his youth. The mitigating factor is the Holy Spirit. When Jesus came up from the waters of his baptism he received the Holy Spirit. Who he was prior to that point is irrelevant. What he did after receiving the Spirit is what matters. Just as it is in our lives. The fact that Jesus walked in steadfast obedience at the will of the Spirit from the time he received the Spirit until his death is what is important. Jesus points out that no man will see the kingdom of God unless he is born of water as well as the Spirit. Jesus was born of the water of Mary's womb. He was then born to the Spirit at his baptism. From the time of his birth by the Spirit, until his death, he is seen walking a perfect life. What he did prior is irrelevant.

But he went into the temple after receiving the baptism.

No, He went into the temple before the mikvah(baptism), at His bar mitzvah. Remember, they were amazed at His grasp of the Scriptures.

Regarding the mikvah of Yochannan, it's purpose was not for repentance in this case. That is why Yochannan was confused. It was to publically proclaim His prophetic ministry. I do not believe that the Ruach HaKodesh was not with Yeshua before that mikvah.

I presume you are speaking of the story in Luke 2 when Mary and Joseph could not find Jesus and later found him back in Jerusalem? As I understand that scripture He was found in the temple courts. I may be mistaken but I thought the temple courts was the area outside of the actual temple. A market or bizarre where people could by offerings prior to entering into the temple. The same area that the money changers, that Jesus overturned their tables, would have also had booths.

As far as the Holy Spirit being with Jesus prior to his baptism or not being with him it is unclear. What is clear is that the first time we see Jesus and the Spirit face to face, as it were, was at his baptism. It may be that the Spirit was overshadowing the life of Jesus as a child, but that Jesus was not fully aware of the Spirit until his baptism.

It seems more sensible that Jesus was born to the Holy Spirit at his baptism. The reason I say this is that Jesus's ministry was about do as I say. But having said it he would have also done it himself. So if he says we must be born twice it means that he too would have undertaken that requirement as the perfect example. It seems as the example that Jesus was giving us was that the Holy Spirit will come to us when our heart sincerely desires to serve God and we express that publicly. And that when the Spirit does come we are to follow the Spirit and do as the Spirit teaches, just as Jesus did.

Furthermore, if we want to go back prior to the birth of Jesus when the angle tells Mary that her child shall be born of the Holy Spirit. That is not saying when that event will happen. It does not have to imply that when Jesus is born of the water of Mary's womb that he was also a son of the Spirit at that moment as well. It would be just as true if Jesus is born of the water of Mary's womb and then 30 years later is born to the Holy Spirit. The child in her would still be of the Holy Spirit just the timing would differ.