Contradictions in the N.T.

[liamconnor]

I apologize, for I am sure this is a hackneyed topic.


Now, though discrepancies and even contradictions in the Bible do not automatically threaten my beliefs (there are some which, if they could be shown, would make me abandon Christianity) still, the mention of "contradictions in Scripture" is made so often, I have forgotten which ones we have in mind.

Let's narrow this down to the N.T. since that is an explicitly Christian compilation.

What are they. Are there ways of reconciling them?

[Divine Insight]

What are they. Are there ways of reconciling them?

One major contradiction I recognized whilst still a Christian is the contradiction that Jesus taught us not to cast the first stone at sinners, whilst the God of the Old Testament demanded that we must do this without taking pity on the sinner whether we like it or not.

This contradiction is extreme, IMHO.

Jesus said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone?"

Does this mean that we are supposed to stone sinners to death if we are indeed without sin? If not, then why would Jesus suggest that sinless people should cast the first stone?

Moreover, if only sinless people are supposed to do this, then why wasn't this made clear in the OT?

Also consider the following contradiction:

If only sinless people were supposed to do this, then that necessarily means that there must have been sinless people on Earth at the time of the OT otherwise why would a God who only wants sinless people to stone sinners to death command sinners to this?

Yet, the idea that there existed sinless humans before Jesus blows Christianity clean out of the water because Jesus was supposed to be the ONLY sinless person who ever lived. In fact, this is what made him necessary. If there had been sinless men they would have served as the salvation for all men.

So there are extreme problems with this. Jesus taught us not to cast the first stone at sinners. But the God of the OT demanded that we are to do this and take no pity of the sinner in doing it.

So as far as I'm concerned this is an contradiction that cannot be resolved.

In fact, it becomes in more impossible to resolve in light of Matthew 5-17-18 where Jesus proclaims that he has not come to change the laws and that no one jot or tittle of the OT law shall pass from law. So that verse right there is a contradiction to Jesus teaching us that we are not to stone sinners to death. Especially adulterers who were caught in the act and there is no question of their guilt or innocence which is the case in the story of the woman at the well where Jesus tell only those who are without sin to cast the first stone.

So this is an extreme contradiction. In fact, this is one of the very first contradictions in the Bible that I noticed as a Christian. I noticed it specifically because I did not like the commandment of the OT God that we are supposed to do this and so I saw Jesus as "letting me off the hook" of having to obey the God of the OT. But clearly that can't work because Jesus himself said that he did not come to CHANGE the laws.

So yes, I see this as a contradiction in the NT that cannot be resolved. And I should point out that this is only ONE of them. Although, as I've said, this was indeed the very FIRST contradiction I ran across as a Christian. Jesus teaching us to disobey God whilst simultaneously proclaiming that he did not come to change the law and that not on jot or tittle shall pass from the OT Law.

That's a contradiction.

One that could have been resolved had Jesus simply stated that he did indeed come to change the law. But clearly that's not how the NT story goes.

I have since found many other contradictions in the NT.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

One major contradiction I recognized whilst still a Christian is the contradiction that Jesus taught us not to cast the first stone at sinners, whilst the God of the Old Testament demanded that we must do this without taking pity on the sinner whether we like it or not.

Thanks for the note. However, I had asked in the OP to keep it to N.T. contradictions.

Bringing in the O.T. drags in too many theological theories for a single thread.

For instance, the doctrine of Progressive Revelation which states that God encouraged truths about ultimate reality through stages. 1) Belief in a happy afterlife comes late in the O.T. (Isaiah at the earliest, then Daniel; before that, everyone, the good the bad and the ugly, simply went to sheol). 2) None of the O.T. anticipates the Jesus of the gospels. The Jesus of the gospels fulfilled almost none of the Messianic prophecies. And many of the claims about him in the N.T. were never anticipated by the O.T.

Under this hermeneutic (Progressive revelation) the Bible is not first and foremost a system, but rather a story, a narrative. In a sense, even an ethical narrative. But the main point is that the O.T. was always about God's plan of bringing the world back to himself. And that meant interacting with the human situation as the human situation developed with time.


The O.T. absolutely upholds the seriousness of sin. Death (as Paul states) is the wage of sin. But Jesus believed (right or wrongly) that he was ushering in a new age, not an age in which sin did not deserve death, but in which Jesus' own death altered the situation.

Of course, a skeptic can laugh at that. I suppose anybody can laugh at anything they are hostile to and do not wish to understand. and so those who insist it is a system, like Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics, will of course point out character discrepancies.

In this thread, I do not wish to get involved in that debate; It is a good topic. But not the one for this thread.

What are solely N.T. contradictions.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

This contradiction is extreme, IMHO.

Jesus said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone?"

Does this mean that we are supposed to stone sinners to death if we are indeed without sin? If not, then why would Jesus suggest that sinless people should cast the first stone?

Moreover, if only sinless people are supposed to do this, then why wasn't this made clear in the OT?

Why didn't Jesus cast the stone, what with him being sinless and all?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Let's narrow this down to the N.T. since that is an explicitly Christian compilation.

What are they. Are there ways of reconciling them?

Okay, challenge accepted.
In Gospel Matthew, an angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Jesus will do great things.
In Gospel Luke, the same happens to Mary, and shortly afterward Mary tells Elizabeth about this.

However, what do we see happening later on? Instead of having the highest regard for their son, and believing he is destined to do great things...in Mark 6, Jesus says that he doesn't receive any honour among his relatives and household.

There's also the different dates given for Jesus's birth. According to Matthew, he was born during the reign of Herod the Great, but according to Luke, his birth was during the reign of Quirinius, Governor of Syria who became such after Herod died.

Luke has Mary and Joseph leaving their home in Nazareth to travel to Bethlehem, where Mary will give birth to Jesus.
However, Matthew has Mary and Joseph going to live in Nazareth after the birth.

There's also contradiction on whether John the Baptist knew who Jesus was. According to Gospel John, when he is baptizing Jesus (which by necessity would have to have occurred before his imprisonment), he refers to Jesus as 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world'.
However in Gospel Luke, while he is in prison, he asks two of Jesus's disciples to ask Jesus "Are you the one who is coming, or do we look for someone else?""

There's also what day the Last Supper fell on. Three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) have the supper take place on the first day of Passover (with the arrest and trial by necessity happening the day after, on the second day). In Gospel John, the supper takes place the day before the first day of Passover.

There's the betrayal by Judas Iscariot. He is claimed to have been given thirty pieces of silver, in accordance with prophecy. Well, when that 'prophecy' was written, 'pieces of silver' were indeed in circulation, but NOT in Judas's time. Judas's time period used minted coins, not currency that had to be weighed out, as Gospel Matthew writes.
As to who bought the field where Judas dies: according to Matthew, it is the priests, whereas Acts has Judas buying it.
Embarrassingly, in Gospel Matthew, Jesus says to his apostles "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

That will do for starters.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 3 by liamconnor]

In this thread, I do not wish to get involved in that debate; It is a good topic. But not the one for this thread.

So just to make clear, here on this thread, you are not looking to debate or argue, you just want to see a list of NT contradictions?

[historia]

Jesus said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone?"

Does this mean that we are supposed to stone sinners to death if we are indeed without sin? If not, then why would Jesus suggest that sinless people should cast the first stone?

Moreover, if only sinless people are supposed to do this, then why wasn't this made clear in the OT?

Why didn't Jesus cast the stone, what with him being sinless and all?

The problem here, of course, is that the Pericope Adulterae is a well-known interpolation, and so is not the best foundation on which to base either of these arguments.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Now, though discrepancies and even contradictions in the Bible do not automatically threaten my beliefs (there are some which, if they could be shown, would make me abandon Christianity) still, the mention of "contradictions in Scripture" is made so often, I have forgotten which ones we have in mind.

Let's narrow this down to the N.T. since that is an explicitly Christian compilation.

What are they.

The dead don't hop up and stroll about town, even on Sunday.

Are there ways of reconciling them?

Quit telling tales.

[polonius]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Quote:
This contradiction is extreme, IMHO.

Jesus said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone?"

Does this mean that we are supposed to stone sinners to death if we are indeed without sin? If not, then why would Jesus suggest that sinless people should cast the first stone?

Moreover, if only sinless people are supposed to do this, then why wasn't this made clear in the OT?


Why didn't Jesus cast the stone, what with him being sinless and all?

RESPONSE:

The story of the woman taken in adultery only appears in the Gospel of John, but not in early copies. It was added about 400 AD

The two oldest complete New Testaments that are extant (we have) are the Codex Sinaiticus dated 325 AD and the Codex Vaticanus dated 375 AD. Neither has the woman taken in adultery story.

[JLB32168]

One thing I think needs to be addressed, Liam, is the idea of contradiction " a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another and discrepancy, which is simply a lack of similarity between two or more facts. The two are often used interchangeably by critics; however, the two arent congruent. The example of a discrepancy between two accounts is the number of angels present at the tomb. One account says X angels were present while the other says Y angels were present. Most people would regard such a thing as a contradiction, which would be more like one account saying that Christ was crucified while another said that he escaped out of the Jews hands.