Contradiction Or Paradox?

[ReChoired]

pixie dust...and Peter Pan

I believe in those two also. They're related to devils, and the devil himself (personification in P.P.).

That's a much longer study.

But this might help:

The Magic Kingdom - Little Light Studios : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[Grailhunter]

Oh, I do. They're called in other language, rhinoceros:

View attachment 11983

lol

 

[Grailhunter]

I believe in those two also. They're related to devils, and the devil himself (personification in P.P.).

That's a much longer study.

But this might help:

The Magic Kingdom - Little Light Studios : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

lol

 

[ReChoired]

If I am understanding your question correctly, it really is none of your business! I will say that you were part of the reason and even given that I won't answer you on the public forum beyond what I have already posted.

Listen brother (and I mean it). I was asking out of deep concern, because if I am the real reason you will not be a part, then I am the hindrance, and I will ask God to remove me, that you might be part of this great movement that is finishing the work. Seriously. I'd rather be dead that you might live and see this work of God. Yet, if I am not the ultimate concern, I personally want to know what it is, even if you still dislike me, and you can privately contact me.

The disciples butt-heads too, and their characters rubbed one another, but in the end, Christ was central to each, all except Judas (whom they all liked). I can take it if you do not like me, or how I do things, but do not let that be the real reason you do not become a part of this, which is really God's work.

Sorry brother, if my methods and/or mannerisms are not what you expected. When I first came into this awesome movement, I was shaken to my core, and then some, and still I am rocked by things I did not expect to find here, but those matters are because of sin, not because of Christ Jesus, who is seeking to deliver all from their sin.

Listen to this brother of mine:

Tell me what you honestly think (privately or open, your choice).

Alofa atu.

 

[Nancy]

"No man has seen or can see [God]" (1 Timothy 6:16).

But Adam and Eve saw God. So did Abraham and Moses.

 

[ReChoired]

"No man has seen or can see [God]" (1 Timothy 6:16).

But Adam and Eve saw God. So did Abraham and Moses.

So did Daniel, John and Paul, John the Baptist, James, Stephen for that matter, along with many others, Noah, Isaac, Job, &c.

Yet, 1 Tim. 6:16 is speaking about the fullness of the Father (John 5:37). Adam and Eve, Abraham and Moses all directly saw the Son (John 1:18, 14:7).

Mat_5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Job_19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:​

Here are some of those texts:

Exodus 33:20 KJB - And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

John 1:18 KJB - No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

1 Timothy 6:16 KJB - Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

1 John 4:12 KJB - No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

1 John 4:20 KJB - If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?​

When considering such texts, the immediate context and the whole King James Bible context should be considered more carefully, for instance:

John 1:18 KJB - No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.​

Please notice that John 1:18's KJB reference to “God” is speaking of the person of “the Father”, and yet even so, the text explicitly states that “the only begotten Son” is the person who appeared and “declared” God, the Father, and those who accepted Christ Jesus, have seen the character of God, the Father. John, even repeats this in John 6:46 KJB:

John 6:46 KJB - Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.​

Please notice, that even John 6:46 KJB is not all 'exclusive' of men having seen God, the Father, but explicitly gives the exception [“save he”] by saying, “save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.” All in Christ Jesus, have indeed seen the Father, meaning His character, for Jesus said:

Matthew 11:27 KJB - All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.​

John 14:7 KJB - If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

John 14:8 KJB - Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

John 14:9 KJB - Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Hebrews 1:1 KJB - God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Hebrews 1:2 KJB - Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Hebrews 1:3 KJB - Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;​

In Exodus 33:20 KJB, the context reveals that Moses was not allowed to see the “face” of God in the fullness of His Glory, as in Exodus 33:23 KJB, so God hid Moses in the cleft of a rock, and passed by him, placing His hand over him, and Moses saw the back parts of God.

It is those who are not in Christ Jesus that have not seen God, the Father, since they have rejected His character in the person of His Son:

John 5:37 KJB - And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

John 5:43 KJB - I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

3 John 1:11 KJB - Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.​

 

[justbyfaith]

People get on their soap box and try to make people think they are holy by defending God.

That is not my reason for defending God.

You're berating the point of work. If, as you insist, any work was forbidden then Jesus, who healed on the Sabbath, worked. And as such sinned by breaking his own Sabbath rest law.

That is what I am saying (John 5:18). Except that Jesus didn't sin when He violated the sabbath; because with a change in priesthood came a change in the law (Hebrews 7:12 and context). He came not after a carnal commandment but after the power of an endless (indestructible) life.

The Bible actually says:

Mat_5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Php_3:15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.
Php_4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
Luk_1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
Mat_19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Mar_10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.​

Also, you appear to have forgotten,

Luk 6:40, The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

 

[ReChoired]

...Also, you appear to have forgotten,

Luk 6:40, The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

Forgotten? No. It is a great text on that subject! It goes with:

Rev_3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

 

[ReChoired]

That is what I am saying (John 5:18). Except that Jesus didn't sin when He violated the sabbath; because with a change in priesthood came a change in the law (Hebrews 7:12 and context).

Hebrews 7:12 and the "law" spoken of isn't referring to the Ten Commandments. The whole chapter is the law of priesthood an sacrifices, none of which are in the Ten Commandments.

Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.​

Read the rest of the chapter. The Ten Commandments weren't given "under" "the Levitical preisthood", for it (Ten Commandments) existed before there even was a Levitical priesthood. That which came after and "under" the Levitical preisthood, was the "law" about ordaining further priests, and things of the altar. That is what changed, the "carnal" "commandment"/"law" of priesthood, not the spiritual Law of God (Romans 7:14) the Ten Commandments.

You are also placing the cart before the horse, for when is the timing that the "change also of the law" took place? At John 5:28? No.

 

[Berserk]

Barney or another poster will surely explain how 2 contradictions between Luke and the other Gospels can be removed or at least reduced to paradoxes:

(1) "When they [the women] did not see His body there [at the tomb], they came back to us and told us that they had seen a vision of angels who said that He was alive (Luke 24:23)." The apparent implication is that the women did not see Jesus. But John 20:14-18 and Matthew 28:9-10 claim that the women saw Jesus at the tomb or while returning from the tomb to report what they saw to the disciples.

(2) Jesus: "So stay in the city [Jerusalem] until you have been clothed with power from on high (Luke 24:49)." Thus Luke records no Galilean resurrection appearances. But in Matthew 28:7, the angel at the tomb instructs the women to remind the disciples that Jesus will appear to them in Galilee. So by implication they must leave Jerusalem and return to Galilee for to see the risen Jesus. Thus, Matthew records no Jerusalem appearance to Jesus' male disciples.

 

[justbyfaith]

Hebrews 7:12 and the "law" spoken of isn't referring to the Ten Commandments. The whole chapter is the law of priesthood an sacrifices, none of which are in the Ten Commandments.

Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.​

Read the rest of the chapter. The Ten Commandments weren't given "under" "the Levitical preisthood", for it (Ten Commandments) existed before there even was a Levitical priesthood. That which came after and "under" the Levitical preisthood, was the "law" about ordaining further priests, and things of the altar. That is what changed, the "carnal" "commandment"/"law" of priesthood, not the spiritual Law of God (Romans 7:14) the Ten Commandments.

You are also placing the cart before the horse, for when is the timing that the "change also of the law" took place? At John 5:28? No.

So, how do you explain the fact that Jesus brake the sabbath (John 5:16-18) and yet was without sin?

I believe that the change in law took place either on the day of Jesus' birth or else on the day of His baptism; at which time He became High Priest according to the order of Melchizedec.

 

[Enoch111]

I personally find the presence of paradox in Scripture quite fascinating.

Christianity -- by definition -- is paradoxical.

Definition of paradox
1: a tenet contrary to received opinion

Received opinion says that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The Bible says that eternal life is the FREE gift of God to the one who believes on, and receives Christ by faith.

 

[ReChoired]

So, how do you explain the fact that Jesus brake the sabbath (John 5:16-18) and yet was without sin?

I addressed this way back at the beginning:

Contradiction Or Paradox?

Untrue.

Joh_15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

However, moreso, looking at the text [John 5:18], this word for “broken” is ελυενG3089 V-IAI-3S [Grk. Trans. = eleun] and, generally meaning 'loosed' [as in, 'untied', 'unbound', 'set free'], can be seen in other passages, like:

loose, 15
Mat_16:19, Mat_18:18, Mar_11:2 (2), Mar_11:4, Luk_13:15, Luk_19:30-31 (2), Luk_19:33, Joh_11:44, Act_24:25-26 (2), Rev_5:2, Rev_5:5, Rev_9:14

loosed, 10
Mat_16:19, Mat_18:18, Mar_7:35, Luk_13:16, Act_2:24, Act_22:30, 1Co_7:27, Rev_9:15, Rev_20:3, Rev_20:7

broken, 7
Joh_5:18, Joh_7:23, Joh_10:35, Act_13:43, Act_27:41, Act_27:44, Eph_2:14

unloose, 3
Mar_1:7, Luk_3:16, Joh_1:27

destroy, 2
Joh_2:19, 1Jo_3:8

dissolved, 2
2Pe_3:11-12 (2)

loosing, 2
Mar_11:5, Luk_19:33

break, 1
Mat_5:19

melt, 1
2Pe_3:10

off, 1
Act_7:33

put, 1
Act_7:33 (2)​

Therefore did Jesus “destroy” the Sabbath? No. He clearly defends His position from Scripture upholding the Sabbath.

Did Jesus “dissolve” the Sabbath? Again, No, otherwise why defend His actions from Scripture about the appropriateness of what was permissible in/on the Sabbath?

Did Jesus actually “break” the Sabbath? No, for that would have been sin [1 John 3:4, etc], and would have been contrary to Jesus' own mission as stated in Prophecy [Isaiah 42:21], in which He would “magnify” the Law and make it “honourable”, not dishonourable or lessened.

Therefore, what does this word “broken” mean in the context of the Pharisaical understanding? Jesus ignored their man-made traditions which placed heavy “burdens” upon Sabbath, which God never gave:

Mat_23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.​

Jesus therefore indeed “broke” the Sabbath free of these horrendous selfish regulations which the Pharisees, etc had burdened it with, but never ever would break the Sabbath as commanded to all men [the Sabbath commandment even speaks of Gentiles and beasts of the earth, and nowhere does it say “Jew” in the Commandment, Exodus 20:8-11]. In effect, what Jesus did was give rest back to the people on Sabbath. He loosed their restrictions, untied those toilsome knots, and set it free to be obeyed in righteousness. Notice Isaiah 58, even contexually in regards the Sabbath:

Isa_58:6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?

Mat_11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Mat_11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Exo_33:14 And he said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.​

I believe that the change in law took place either on the day of Jesus' birth or else on the day of His baptism; at which time He became High Priest according to the order of Melchizedec.

Why do you believe this? Jesus was not "made High Priest" until after the Ascension, at Pentecost - see Acts 2:1-4,33; Psalms 133:1-3; Revelation 5:6, &c.

The Eternal Covenant of Life and Peace (Malachi 2:5) had to be ratified first by the blood of Jesus (Psalms 116:14,18), and afterward by the Father (Psalms 61:5) before anything could change.

Jesus is not a High Priest on earth, notice:

Heb_8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:​

 

[Grailhunter]

Contradictions versus Perfection….

It does not matter if I list them or I do not list the biblical contradictions, they are still there. God is real so there is no reason to run Christianity as a fantasy in your mind. God is reality, you do not have to hide from or be afraid of the truth. Truth should not cast doubt on your faith. The topic of perfection is another topic that I am not going to discuss because people have issues with reading. lol

As far as how you perceive the Bible, you guys are looking at it from the wrong direction. On one side you have big issues because God allowed men to write the Bible…and more or less maintain it.
1. The names of God the Father and God the Son were removed from the scriptures. God’s name originally appeared around 6828 times in the OT, they took every one of them out. The first change was to remove His name and replace it with the Tetragrammaton, then they remove that and replaced it with Lord or God. To take His name out and rearrange the sentences, that amounted to over 25,000 alterations.

In the NT Christ’s name has always been rendered from the Greek or the Latin. His name is Yeshua, yes it can be spelt and pronounced in English. Like Ed and Edward it can also be Yahshua. So as it is the name of God the Father or God the Son does not appear in the Bible. Removed by Jews and Christians, does that make any sense to you?

2. Some call it the consonant shift, I call it the “J” slam. The letter “J” does not appear in any language until the middle of the 1400’s. That is 1400 years after Christ. Probably…maybe because of Shakespeare the letter “J” became fashionable. So they inserted it into the scriptures by replacing the names that actually started with a “Y” and changed them all to “J” every person place or thing that started with “Y” was replaced, Old and New Testament. Ask a Jew how to pronounce Jerusalem…you will find it starts with a “Y.” If you look at the names in the OT and NT that now start with a “J” you will find that their names are actually pronounced with a “Y.” So this includes several more thousands of alterations.

3. There is a long list of biblical contradictions that I post that caused a stir.

4. In the NT it has been proven that certain scriptures have been added to the Bible that were not in the earlier texts.

5. There are issues with translations and even some Gnostic concepts that have made their way into the scriptures.

On the other side of the coin…Do you think that God did not know that man would make some honest mistakes and also mess around with scriptures? The Bible has a purpose…it gives us some historical and practical information about the Trinity and morality. But more importantly it gives us the information needed to be saved. Regardless of how man has messed with the scriptures, God made sure that the purpose of the Bible would survive.

That is the miracle of the scriptures, not perfection. Then there is also the power of the scriptures….man wrote the scriptures but man has no power to give to the scriptures….that power came from God.

The focus on perfection is irrelevant because man cannot comprehend perfection in this world or the perfection of God. The Bible is not perfect but that does not mean it does not have power or purpose. The focus on perfection is the Achilles’ heel of Christianity. Faith dependent on perfection will always have it weaknesses. The insinuation of perfection will always be an easy target for those that want to criticize. And deep down most understand it is not perfect so that reduces the confidence of faith and salvation. Faith should never be dependent on perfection.

Bottomline, place your faith in God and no one will be able to shake your faith. It is wrong to look at a book as a God. The Bible is a great book but only God is perfect.

 

[ReChoired]

The names of God the Father and God the Son were removed from the scriptures.

The family name, is JEHOVAH Elohiym. The Father's name is JEHOVAH. Always was (even Nehemia Gordon has demonstrated this from numerous sources, including Rabbinic ones. John Gill wrote an entire history on it. Gail Riplinger cites these and other sources). The Son is Jesus JEHOVAH (see Genesis 49:18; Exodus 14:13; 2 Chronicles 20:17; Jonah 2:9; Psalms 119:174 HOT) or JEHOVAH Immanuel (see Psalms 46:7,11 HOT). Both are still in Scripture. For instance:

Exo_6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.​

The name was kept reserved for several reasons, persecution, sanctity, to keep it away from certain groups. Also LORD is a proper way to relate to God, as I don't even go around saying my earthly father's actual name except on rare occasions.

 

[ReChoired]

So this includes several more thousands of alterations.

No, that is what happens when translating, and pronunciation from one language to another. Just ask Jesus in the NT, when speaking to Paul in the Hebrew, if it was ok for Luke to translate that into koine Greek.

For instance, in English:

1Ki_7:21 And he set up the pillars in the porch of the temple: and he set up the right pillar, and called the name thereof Jachin: and he set up the left pillar, and called the name thereof Boaz.​

"Jachin"

In Samoan it is Iakina. Pronounced 'Ee ah key nah', and when said fast, like Eyahkeynah.

"... The letter J used to be used as the swash letter I, used for the letter I at the end of Roman numerals when following another I, as in XXIIJ or xxiij instead of XXIII or xxiii for the Roman numeral representing 23. ... Originally, 'I' and 'J' were different shapes for the same letter, ..." - J - Wikipedia

In old English the letter "i" had several sounds, and later was distinguished between several hard forms, and soft forms, and so "j" came to be its own.

 

[amadeus]

Sounds like a wise lady. Puzzles, while sometimes complicated, are to be fun and interesting, and to unite those participating in it, and not to be a endless chore (meaning too many pieces that rarely gets finished, or has interest in for long for some).

I had some like that when I was younger, and even had a really complicated one that was dual sided and repeated ever so many frames with slight differences.

Is it of a real photo, or artistic rendition (painting, etc a la Thomas Kinkade)?

Wise she is! Thank God for her, for without her, I would be empty and perhaps even lost. When I came to the Lord definitely in 1976, we came individually but together. God saved our marriage at the same time.

Especially in the secular, I have always been naive but she has filled in that gap for me. Also whenever God has wanted us to leave a place I have always been slow to respond. She has worked through her to get me moving.

I enjoy working on jigsaw puzzles, but not if they are too large or complex so as make it as you say, a chore. This one is a real photo but I rarely look to names when choosing new ones, but rather the scene displayed...

 

[amadeus]

How many grandchildren do you have?

I have five of them and 2 greatgrandchildren. The wife of one of my grandsons is expecting the 3rd next year.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

I think one of the biggest paradoxes is our duel nature. Our spirit wars against our flesh. Paul said, "For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me." Romans 7:15-17
"For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please." Gal. 5:17
There is division inside us. We argue with ourselves. A thought leads us to go one way and then another thought says wait a minute, the Bible says this or the Holy Spirit says, "No, you ought to go this way". So we must walk in the Spirit and say no to the flesh.

 

[Truther]

This is not a debate thread. I can't keep it from becoming one, of course, but let the record show that it was never my purpose for starting it.

I believe that most disagreements stem from either a refusal or lack of recognition that the solution involves accepting that God has the power to claim things which, if originating from humans, would be considered talking out of both sides of one's mouth.

For instance:

***And indeed, there must be differences among you to show which of you are approved. (1 Corinthians 11:19


***Ephesians 4
11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.


I have chosen a mild example to start. But I have no doubt that the question of unity versus division could be debated at length on this forum. In this example, it seems to be that division is a temporarily necessary reality, but that unity should be the ultimate goal of the church.

I personally find the presence of paradox in Scripture quite fascinating.

Does anyone else have any examples of passages that seem to contradict each other, but are actually both quite true?

The root reason there is no unity of the faith is folks prefer commentary over sole scriptura.