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?

[Elijah John]

But yeah, I agree, we cannot know for sure. So we makes our best guess.

Exactly.

So does this sound like the methods of a trustworthy God?

He's going to send you hearsay rumors that you need to make your best guess from on matters that are important to your eternal fate?

It just doesn't add up.

What doesn't add up is the idea of God sacrificing Himself to Himself, or that three Gods are One God, and One God is three Gods.

But pure montheism and simple repentance makes sense.

All the Western religions preach that, Christianity too, in it's most primitive forms.

And I believe Zoroatrianism, Sikhism and Bahai preach that too.

Seems the way of sin and evil are certain roads to destruction. SO it is only reasonalble that by embracing the good and benevolent as a way of life, however we understand it's origins, expressions and details, are our best bet for a "road of Life".

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]
Matthew 1:16 vs, Luke 3:23

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem--they are different. Luke's genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan and Solomon.From here on, the entire lineage is a contradiction. Even Joseph's father is a contradiction, with Matthew naming "Jacob" as Joseph's father and Luke naming "Heli" as Joseph's father.

[JLB32168]

Merriam Webster Definitions of Contradiction

Most of your arguments are built upon dictionary entries and nothing more and you cannot be oblivious to the obvious nuances between calling something a discrepancy or calling it a contradiction. Even Oxford doesnt define the words as perfect synonyms.Thats probably because contra dicto means to speak against in Latin whereas crepto (as in dis & crepto) primarilyto crack/creak but also means to vary.

[Divine Insight]

Seems the way of sin and evil are certain roads to destruction. SO it is only reasonalble that by embracing the good and benevolent as a way of life, however we understand it's origins, expressions and details, are our best bet for a "road of Life".

This is true in a purely secular world. There's no need to imagine a supernatural God for this to be true. Especially when words like "sin" and "evil" are seen as nothing other than labels for anything that has been recognized as "not good".

The concepts of "good and bad" would naturally exist in a purely secular world. In fact, it would be expected in a purely secular world. It's actually only a "Problem of Evil" when a supernatural God is proposed. Only then does it become problematic because if a supernatural God created the world then there's really no reason why anything "bad" should exist at all. Especially if we are holding up the ideal that the supernatural creator is omni-benevolent. If that's the case then how could "evil" have arisen?

There is no "Problem of Evil" in a secular world.

So religious theologies are the ideologies that are stuck with having to explain "The Problem of Evil". And trying to pin the problem of evil on the creation instead of the creator is actually extremely problematic.

The concept of "Free Will" is typically used as the excuse for this, but in truth that doesn't hold water. There is no reason why evil would be required for Free Will to exist. We could have countless benevolent choices before us and we would still have Free Will. It's simply not required to have "bad" choices available in order for Free Will to exist. To there's no real basis for Free Will being the root cause of "evil".

Secularism actually has everything covered. And theism doesn't make any sense at all. So the idea that because "bad" things happen this requires the existence of a supreme being is just plain nonsense. The fact that "bad" things happen is actually very powerful evidence that there is no such thing as a supreme benevolent creator.

The Problem of Evil belongs to theism, not secularism. It's not a problem in secularism at all, to the contrary, it's precisely what would be expected in a secular reality.

[1213]

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

Maybe the answer is in these:

The wicked borrows and never repays, but the righteous is gracious and giving.
Ps. 37:21
"Thus has Yahweh of Hosts spoken, saying, 'Execute true judgment, and show kindness and compassion every man to his brother.
Zechariah 7:9
I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the foreigner who is living with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.
Deuteronomy 1:16-17
"You shall not spread a false report. Don't join your hand with the wicked to be a malicious witness. You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; neither shall you testify in court to side with a multitude to pervert justice; neither shall you favor a poor man in his cause.
Exodus 23:1-3
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he who is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
Deuteronomy 17:6
Jehovah is righteous in all His ways, and kind in all His works.
Ps. 145:17

[Divine Insight]

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

Maybe the answer is in these:

The wicked borrows and never repays, but the righteous is gracious and giving.
Ps. 37:21
"Thus has Yahweh of Hosts spoken, saying, 'Execute true judgment, and show kindness and compassion every man to his brother.
Zechariah 7:9
I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the foreigner who is living with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.
Deuteronomy 1:16-17
"You shall not spread a false report. Don't join your hand with the wicked to be a malicious witness. You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; neither shall you testify in court to side with a multitude to pervert justice; neither shall you favor a poor man in his cause.
Exodus 23:1-3
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he who is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
Deuteronomy 17:6
Jehovah is righteous in all His ways, and kind in all His works.
Ps. 145:17

This thread is about contradictions.

If "Jehovah is righteous in all His ways, and kind in all His works" then why did he ever command men to stone sinners to death in the first place?

It's not like it was man's idea to stone sinners to death. This is the problem. It was the God of the Bible who commanded men to stone sinners to death, and this was commanded to be down without pity. It was a commandment, not a mere option to do if you wanted to.

This is a huge contradiction that cannot be reconciled short of proclaiming that the OT was in error in proclaiming that God had ever commanded this in the first place. But if that was the case, then why didn't Jesus just say so?

Liamconnor doesn't want to bring the OT into this discussion of contradictions in the NT, but how is that possible when so much of what the NT has to say is directly related to what the OT supposedly had taught as directives from this God?

This was the whole idea of "testing" Jesus by the Pharisees to see if Jesus had a response that was compatible with the OT laws. And clearly his answer was NOT compatible with the OT laws.

Unfortunately the authors of the NT make the Pharisees out to be stupid idiots who couldn't even recognize a contradiction when it bites them in the nose.

[Realworldjack]

Here's another one, from Edgar Jones' site:

Paul says:
Rom.7
[9] I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died;
[10] the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me.

Jesus says:
Matt.19
[17] And he said to him, Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.

That is an important theological contradiction, not a mere matter of narrative discprepency.

Liam, did you get a chance to consider this one?

I did not.

In fact, I have commented on all I have read: which means two now.

I don't see a contradiction in the logical sense. Paul is not saying that the Law is bad in itself; Jesus affirms the law is good, just as Paul does in the same letter.

What I notice is that a good many participants here like to cut and paste a couple verses, ignoring the rest of the letter or narrative.


I mean, can you imagine if law courts today recognized cut and pasted text messages as evidence!!!

Read the whole letter; study the whole letter; buy commentaries on the whole letter.


Or, if you can't. ASK QUESTIONS before ARGUING.

I have read the letters or Paul, and I read them as a contradiction to the teachings of Jesus, on several points, blood atonement for one, and the function of the Law for another.

This is a clear example.

In my own words, to paraphrase.

Jesus: "keep the Commandments and live"

Paul: "try to keep the Commandments and die".

Clearly Paul contradicts Jesus. Paul indicates that no one can be justified (enter life, be "saved" etc.) by works of the Law. Jesus indicated one can enter life, inherit eternal life, by keeping the Commandments.

Clear contradiction.

Let me ask you this...IF you can admit to any contradiction between Paul and Jesus, whose side would you take?

Also, have any of us demonstrated any serious contradictions or discrepancies on this thread to your satisfaction?

In addition, did Paul ever indicate that the means of forgiveness is anything other than the "blood of Christ" and believing in his "sacrifice"?

Jesus did, in the parables, (prodigal son and others) the Beattitudes, (the merciful will receive mercy) and the Lord's prayer, (forgive as we forgive).

And John the Baptist taught that one could be forgiven, implictly independent of Jesus by repenting and being baptized, or as Luke indicates, John performed baptisms of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Not "baptisms of perparations for being washed in the blood."

Did Paul teach any of that?

If not, yet another serious contradiction, because Paul was wedded to the idea of salvation by blood.

I have read the letters or Paul, and I read them as a contradiction to the teachings of Jesus, on several points, blood atonement for one

Okay, if Jesus did not teach, "blood atonement" and He never thought that it would be His own blood that would atone for sin, then what did Jesus mean by this saying?

Matthew 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to Elijah John]

I have read the letters or Paul, and I read them as a contradiction to the teachings of Jesus, on several points, blood atonement for one, and the function of the Law for another.

I apologize. That was a generic statement, not insinuating anything about your own familiarity with Paul or Jesus at all.

This is a clear example.

In my own words, to paraphrase.

Jesus: "keep the Commandments and live"

Paul: "try to keep the Commandments and die".

I will never deny that the Bible, as a whole, exhibits tension, perhaps even contradiction. And, if my faith were based on a late doctrine like inerrancy, I would probably not be a Christian.

Having said that, we should notice a few things

First, The gospels were written after Pauls letters and so we should consider Paul to be the earliest stratum of Christianity. Add to that, Paul appears to have known at least Peter and to have discussed with Peter at least some of the life of Jesus and his teachings. And yet the gospel authors do not show the slightest worry over the discrepancies that seem to plague us. Should this historical point not caution us?

Second: Jesus also summarized the Law as love one another and love God. As did Paul. So what do we do with that agreement?

Thirdly, I don't think your paraphrase of Paul is adequate. Paul was not saying "if you don't disobey every single commandment in the O.T., you will die (this is the converse of your paraphrase, 'If you try and keep the commandments, you will die). Have you noticed that Paul says that it is important to keep the commandments of God (1 Cor.)?

There has been much work on the Pauline theology, especially on the phrase works of the law. Have you read E.P. Sanders Paul and Judaism, patterns of religion? Monumental! I will perhaps start a thread on it in Dogmas.

Let me ask you this...IF you can admit to any contradiction between Paul and Jesus, whose side would you take?

A very good question. If the matter was theological, I would probably take Paul. In the early church, Jesus does not seem to be hailed as a theologian; his excellence was in his obedience.

Also, have any of us demonstrated any serious contradictions or discrepancies on this thread to your satisfaction?

The precise time of the last supper between the synoptics and John are, in my opinion, quite irreconcileable.

It has not been mentioned, but John places the temple disturbance at the beginning of Jesus ministry; the synoptics, at the end.
Some will say it happened twice. I am unconvinced.

But this only leaves me with a theoretical problem: if the author of John knew that that temple disturbance in fact occurred several days prior to Jesus execution, but placed at the beginning of his gospel for thematic purposes, would that be a true contradiction?

In addition, did Paul ever indicate that the means of forgiveness is anything other than the "blood of Christ" and believing in his "sacrifice"?

I do not think blood sacrifice was the essential part of Pauline soteriology. Union with Christ, dying with Christ and being resurrected with Christ, are the core of his soteriology. References to "blood sacrifice" I take to be analogies with the Israel's cultic system, which, as Hebrews makes clear, has been replaced.

Jesus did, in the parables, (prodigal son and others) the Beattitudes, (the merciful will receive mercy) and the Lord's prayer, (forgive as we forgive).

And John the Baptist taught that one could be forgiven, implictly independent of Jesus by repenting and being baptized, or as Luke indicates, John performed baptisms of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Not "baptisms of perparations for being washed in the blood." Did Paul teach any of that?

Ah. I am beginning to see the problem. You (and probably countless others) approach the Bible as a systematic book; like a philosophical treatise written by one author, say Immanuel Kant.

I do not. I approach the Bible as a compilation of works. I don't put a whole lot of mental energy in defining its "divine nature". I come at it from a historical perspective; hence the fact that Jesus seems to have dismissed the O.T. commandment to stone adulteresses (in John's gospel) does not strike me as a contradiction, in the logical sense. It strikes me as a narratival develop. We can develop this even more: John's Christology is very high (actually, all the synoptics have as high Christology as you can have, but John's is most explicit). The Law was given by God. When David committed both murder and adultery, he was not, by God, held to the law. Nor was he condoned. Adultery remained bad; so did murder. But God as God apparently could withhold the penalty.

We see the same in this account of Jesus. Jesus does not say the woman committed no sin ("go, and sin no more"). What he does is presume the divine authority to determine penalty.

If not, yet another serious contradiction, because Paul was wedded to the idea of salvation by blood.

Again, I would need to see your exegetical arguments for the assertion that Paul was enamored with "blood sacrifice". I do not deny that he invoked the O.T. cultic symbols.


A great discussion!

[OnceConvinced]

Here's some, Liam:

1)
Matt 12:30
"Whoever is not with me is against me"

Luke 9:50
"for whoever is not against you is for you."

I am not with him.
I am not against him.
So going by these verses, what am I?

2) (on God being love)
1st John 4:8 God is love
1st Cor 13:5 Love does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

So is God love or not?


3) (Standard doctrinal beliefs based on NT teachings)
Sin can only be cleansed through Jesus Christ.
One must accept Jesus Christ to be cleansed of sin and thus saved from Hell.
A small child under the age of understanding and those who have mental disabilities will be automatically saved from Hell because they are incapable of understanding that they need Jesus.

So is it possible to be saved without the need to accept Jesus?

I'll just keep at at these three for now.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 36 by Divine Insight]

This thread is about contradictions.

If "Jehovah is righteous in all His ways, and kind in all His works" then why did he ever command men to stone sinners to death in the first place?

First, he implemented the death sentence in a few situations; so let's be specific.

Second, How do you interpret "righteousness"? What should the penalty have been for adultery?

Does righteousness mean in the case of adultery "Hey, you made a promise to Sarah. You got Sarah pregnant and she lost her figure; you saw another hot girl years younger. You scratched an itch. So what! You're only human. Dump Sarah and join with the hot girl. After all, we all know these vows of fidelity are just romantic words, intended to spice up the ceremony, and not supposed to be taken seriously."