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

[Danmark]

I like the resurrection of the topic of Bible Contradictions [the last one ended in 2007 when the thread was suspended ] I hope we won't be confined to the contradiction you bring up. Butt First... to your example:

As you mention, it is not necessarily a sin to be born illegitimate (and certainly not by today's values), tho' as you indicate for Jesus to be blameless from God's point of view takes passing those infinitely detailed Leviticus tests.

I keep getting interrupted and may have lost my train of thought, but , but ... yeah, I have

Nonethelessh, let me add a few verses that may bear on the issue:

Galatians 4:4: But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law
And in Galatians 3:10: All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."
Mark 10:18: And Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

[Boltzmann Brain]

I like the resurrection of the topic of Bible Contradictions [the last one ended in 2007 when the thread was suspended ] I hope we won't be confined to the contradiction you bring up. Butt First... to your example:

As you mention, it is not necessarily a sin to be born illegitimate (and certainly not by today's values), tho' as you indicate for Jesus to be blameless from God's point of view takes passing those infinitely detailed Leviticus tests.

I keep getting interrupted and may have lost my train of thought, but , but ... yeah, I have

Nonethelessh, let me add a few verses that may bear on the issue:

Galatians 4:4: But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law
And in Galatians 3:10: All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."
Mark 10:18: And Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

Those are some excellent support quotes, thank you. If I do another draft of this I'll include those.

[Danmark]

I like the resurrection of the topic of Bible Contradictions [the last one ended in 2007 when the thread was suspended ] I hope we won't be confined to the contradiction you bring up. Butt First... to your example:

As you mention, it is not necessarily a sin to be born illegitimate (and certainly not by today's values), tho' as you indicate for Jesus to be blameless from God's point of view takes passing those infinitely detailed Leviticus tests.

I keep getting interrupted and may have lost my train of thought, but , but ... yeah, I have

Nonethelessh, let me add a few verses that may bear on the issue:

Galatians 4:4: But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law
And in Galatians 3:10: All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."
Mark 10:18: And Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

Those are some excellent support quotes, thank you. If I do another draft of this I'll include those.

Thanks. I'm going to forward this to my friend, 'The Tongue.' He and I disagree about almost everything, but he DOES know his Bible. He can subject your analysis to the furnace.

"The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the LORD tests hearts."
Proverbs 17:3

[1213]

(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.

If this is really about Biblical contradiction, then you should show Bible verses that are in contradiction. It seems to me that you have brought interpretations to here and they may be in contradiction, but it is no prove for that Bible is contradictory.

(1) What do you think Bible says is the meaning of Jesus death?

And also, Jesus was born of God, according to the Bible, not of man that was not Marys husband and Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. 1 John 3:9

That leads to conclusion; nothing that Jesus did was sin, because it is not possible to sin, if you are of God

[bluethread]

This is an old and long standing objection to Yeshua as HaMeshiach. In fact, the orthodox refer to Yeshua as mamzer yeshu, leaving out any reference to Adonai. That term, mamzer, is the one used in the command in question. This term refers to an immoral and, to the ultraorthodox, child of a mixed relationship.

If there was indeed an inexplicable conception in which an X chromozome was converted to a Y chromozome and a child resulted without penetration, that term would not apply. The child would not be the result of an immoral relationship, nor would He be the result of a goy parent. Therefore, there is no contradiction. There is an amazing situation, but no contradiction.

[Divine Insight]

Boltzmann,

If you would like a contradiction associated with the idea that Jesus died to pay the wages of sin for mankind, I have a far better contradiction for you. It's iron-clad and there's no wiggle room to even remotely renounce.

Here it is if you are interested:

Preliminary Information:

What is the "wages of sin"? Death is the wages of sin. But not just physical death. Spiritual death is the wages of sin. In fact, if you're a good person you'll still die physically, but then you'll be granted everlasting life in paradise with God. That is the reward for obeying God.

Onward to the Jesus Fable

Jesus was supposedly beaten and nailed to a pole by men. Is that the wages of sin? No. That would have nothing at all to do with atoning sin. So a brutal crucifixion wouldn't even be necessary. The wages of sin is spiritual death. Jesus could have die peacefully from perfectly natural causes or from old age and he still could have qualified as having paid the wages of sin for mankind by dying spiritually.

But wait. There's the contradiction right there!

Did Jesus die spiritually? Did die and cease to exist and was never heard from again.

No! On the contrary he bounced right back from death a mere 3 days later. Supposedly a bunch of Saints also rose from their graves as well.

What happened then?

Well, as these fables go, Jesus then ascended to heaven to sit at the right-hand of God to be the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords for all eternity.

Is that the "Wages of Sin"?

No, it's not. On the contrary that's even better that the reward that most saintly people would get.

So how could it be said that Jesus paid the "wages of sin" for mankind when clearly he didn't. On the contrary, Jesus got the reward that all the Christians themselves lust for.

So the whole myth is clearly a false rumor that wasn't even very well thought-out at all.

It wouldn't matter whether Jesus had sinned or if he was perfect.

He didn't die spiritually. After his body died he was re resurrected and shipped off to heaven. That is NOT how the wages of sin are paid.

Jesus got the reward of a Saint, not a sinner.

So how could he be said to have "died" for the sins of mankind when that would have required spiritual death, not just merely temporary bodily death.

~~~~~

So there you have a blatant flaw in these fables that doesn't even require Jesus to be a sinner. He could have been perfect in every way, and the fable still falls flat on its face.

[bluethread]

Boltzmann,

If you would like a contradiction associated with the idea that Jesus died to pay the wages of sin for mankind, I have a far better contradiction for you. It's iron-clad and there's no wiggle room to even remotely renounce.

Here it is if you are interested:

Preliminary Information:

What is the "wages of sin"? Death is the wages of sin. But not just physical death. Spiritual death is the wages of sin. In fact, if you're a good person you'll still die physically, but then you'll be granted everlasting life in paradise with God. That is the reward for obeying God.

Onward to the Jesus Fable

Jesus was supposedly beaten and nailed to a pole by men. Is that the wages of sin? No. That would have nothing at all to do with atoning sin. So a brutal crucifixion wouldn't even be necessary. The wages of sin is spiritual death. Jesus could have die peacefully from perfectly natural causes or from old age and he still could have qualified as having paid the wages of sin for mankind by dying spiritually.

But wait. There's the contradiction right there!

Did Jesus die spiritually? Did die and cease to exist and was never heard from again.

No! On the contrary he bounced right back from death a mere 3 days later. Supposedly a bunch of Saints also rose from their graves as well.

What happened then?

Well, as these fables go, Jesus then ascended to heaven to sit at the right-hand of God to be the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords for all eternity.

Is that the "Wages of Sin"?

No, it's not. On the contrary that's even better that the reward that most saintly people would get.

So how could it be said that Jesus paid the "wages of sin" for mankind when clearly he didn't. On the contrary, Jesus got the reward that all the Christians themselves lust for.

So the whole myth is clearly a false rumor that wasn't even very well thought-out at all.

It wouldn't matter whether Jesus had sinned or if he was perfect.

He didn't die spiritually. After his body died he was re resurrected and shipped off to heaven. That is NOT how the wages of sin are paid.

Jesus got the reward of a Saint, not a sinner.

So how could he be said to have "died" for the sins of mankind when that would have required spiritual death, not just merely temporary bodily death.

~~~~~

So there you have a blatant flaw in these fables that doesn't even require Jesus to be a sinner. He could have been perfect in every way, and the fable still falls flat on its face.

As a refutation of RCC doctrine, yes. As a contradiction of HaTorah, not so much.

[Divine Insight]

As a refutation of RCC doctrine, yes. As a contradiction of HaTorah, not so much.

It's only intended as a refutation of Christianity. I'm personally not concerned with other interpretations.

Any interpretation that has Jesus dying to pay for the sins of mankind as the sacrificial lamb of God would run into this same problem. And if they aren't making that claim then they would indeed be exempt from this particular contradiction.

[bluethread]

As a refutation of RCC doctrine, yes. As a contradiction of HaTorah, not so much.

It's only intended as a refutation of Christianity. I'm personally not concerned with other interpretations.

Any interpretation that has Jesus dying to pay for the sins of mankind as the sacrificial lamb of God would run into this same problem. And if they aren't making that claim then they would indeed be exempt from this particular contradiction.

According to your singular definiton of sin, yes. The sin related to actions or even motivation is punishable by physical death. That is the sin for which Yeshua died, the first death. The sin of continued unbelief, or lack of faith, is unforgiveable. Yeshua did not die for that. As you have pointed out, as Adonai, He could not have failed to believe, though He was tempted to do so. One can repent and believe. However, when one is in unbelief, that one is dead spiritually. The more one continues in unbelief and practices sins of action and motive, the more one becomes used to being spiritually dead. This putrification leads to the second death, ie. perminent seperation from Adonai.