Contradiction Or Paradox?

ChristisGod · Dec 9, 2020

I will no longer engage in your foolish understandings as I've explained it numerous times already.

enjoy your contradictions.....................................

I will enjoy my harmonious understanding of the Scriptures and My SINLESS SAVIOR.

ChristisGod · Dec 9, 2020

BarnyFife said:
Within the commandment itself, "work" is narrowly defined. But a study of the Levitical laws reveals that either priestly work on the Sabbath is acceptable or excused (which has far-reaching implications summed up in the declaration of Christ that is lawful to do good on the Sabbath--Matthew 12:12), or that the priests indeed violated or profaned the Sabbath with their duties. Frankly, I believe Christ was speaking rhetorically when He said this. I think He perceived that suggesting such a thing would cause them to consider the matter more carefully than they otherwise would. I don't believe He actually thought David broke the law, either, by taking of the shewbread. The Lord has always preferred the keeping of the spirit of the law above the letter. Principle must always be upheld, even when policy cannot be.

O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! (Deuteronomy 5:29)

ditto

BarneyFife · Dec 9, 2020

Truther said:
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Could this not mean law pertaining only to the priesthood? Seems reasonable enough.

BarneyFife · Dec 9, 2020

Christophany said:
and you do not know the meaning of the word work........................

next................................................................

were the priests working in the tabernacle considered work ?

if so then God made them violate the sabbath by making them " work " in the temple.

next..............................................

you have very poor hermenuetics and make the bible CONTRADICT itself.

Perhaps a paradox is the culprit.

Truther · Dec 9, 2020

Christophany said:
and you do not know the meaning of the word work........................

next................................................................

were the priests working in the tabernacle considered work ?

if so then God made them violate the sabbath by making them " work " in the temple.

next..............................................

you have very poor hermenuetics and make the bible CONTRADICT itself.

Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

....not the man that was healed.

Truther · Dec 9, 2020

Christophany said:
I will no longer engage in your foolish understandings as I've explained it numerous times already.

enjoy your contradictions.....................................

I will enjoy my harmonious understanding of the Scriptures and My SINLESS SAVIOR.

No contradiction.

Jesus could not only brake the Law, but CHANGE it.

That is my point.

We are under the Law of Christ(Melchisedek), not Moses.(Hebrews 7)

New priesthood, new Law.

Truther · Dec 9, 2020

BarnyFife said:
Could this not mean law pertaining only to the priesthood? Seems reasonable enough.

No, the entire O.T. is the Law.

Jesus changed or modified anything he wanted because he could.

Now, if he would have sinned one time, he could not be qualified to change it.

It would have changed him.

BarneyFife · Dec 9, 2020

Proverbs 2:
1My son, if you receive my words,
And treasure my commands within you,
2So that you incline your ear to wisdom,
And apply your heart to understanding;
3Yes, if you cry out for discernment,
And lift up your voice for understanding,
4If you seek her as silver,
And search for her as for hidden treasures;
5Then you will understand the fear of the Lord,
And find the knowledge of God.
6For the Lord gives wisdom;
From His mouth come knowledge and understanding;
7He stores up sound wisdom for the upright;
He is a shield to those who walk uprightly;
8He guards the paths of justice,
And preserves the way of His saints.
9Then you will understand righteousness and justice,
Equity and every good path.

Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. (Matthew 13:5)

BarneyFife · Dec 9, 2020

Truther said:
No, the entire O.T. is the Law.

Can you prove this from Scripture itself?

Truther said:
Jesus changed or modified anything he wanted because he could.

Where does the Bible say this?

Truther said:
Now, if he would have sinned one time, he could not be qualified to change it.

Or this?

Truther said:
It would have changed him.

Or this?

These are some pretty bold claims. If you just want to spout them, that's one thing. But if your aim is to convince someone, you're going to need some hefty support.

amadeus · Dec 9, 2020

BarnyFife said:
Perhaps a paradox is the culprit.

Perhaps there really are no paradoxes, but rather simply some things we cannot understand... and this, this lack of understanding, is the culprit if one is needed. Man may need one, but what does God need or require of us?

ChristisGod · Dec 9, 2020

amadeus said:
Perhaps there really are no paradoxes, but rather simply some things we cannot understand... and this, this lack of understanding, is the culprit if one is needed. Man may need one, but what does God need or require of us?

Bingo !

BarneyFife · Dec 9, 2020

amadeus said:
Perhaps there really are no paradoxes, but rather simply some things we cannot understand... and this, this lack of understanding, is the culprit if one is needed. Man may need one, but what does God need or require of us?

I thought a paradox, by definition, was something hard to understand because of being seemingly contradictory.

BarneyFife · Dec 9, 2020

MattMooradian said:
Sin is 'missing the mark'. As an archer aims to hit the bull's eye, but the archer misses: this is a sin. Therefore, a sin is like an error. If I mistakenly assume someone is joking around and I join them in their joke; but, I later discover that the person was serious - I have sinned. Sins are manifold and not every sin is listed in the Bible. Becoming a prostitute may seem like a good idea to feed one's children when all else has failed - the prostitute is attempting to do good, but she missed the bull's eye. We should not condemn the prostitute, however, for she merely errs. Like I erred when I mistook the serious statement as a joke.

"Missing the mark" is a definition of sin provided by man-made lexicons, is it not? Wouldn't we, as Christians, be better served by considering the Bible's several descriptions of sin as being definitive, i.e. "transgression of the law," "whatsoever is not of faith," etc.?

Grailhunter · Dec 9, 2020

MattMooradian said:
Sin is 'missing the mark'. As an archer aims to hit the bull's eye, but the archer misses: this is a sin. Therefore, a sin is like an error. If I mistakenly assume someone is joking around and I join them in their joke; but, I later discover that the person was serious - I have sinned. Sins are manifold and not every sin is listed in the Bible. Becoming a prostitute may seem like a good idea to feed one's children when all else has failed - the prostitute is attempting to do good, but she missed the bull's eye. We should not condemn the prostitute, however, for she merely errs. Like I erred when I mistook the serious statement as a joke.

Absolutely the word means missing the mark, a Greek archery term. It was a good choice for the word sin in the New Testament.
But interestingly enough the Greeks would have never of dreamed of the Christians using it to mean a transgression against God because in their beliefs the word sin had no religious meaning. The sacrifices they performed were only to worship or show respect for their gods. Morality was not much of an issue for the Greco-Roman societies and religion. In their belief system the gods were their own society and only had so much interest in humanity. Which was one of the draws of Christianity, a religion that had a personal relationship with God.

But in the context of the conversation: Did Christ sin? No, He did not. If He healed on Saturday or forgave sins on Saturday, or fed the hungry on Saturday...this is all Good Deeds. God is going to do what is right and He will not transgress against Himself. Now we would have something to talk about if he was a serial killer or child molester but that would never happen.

Then again the prophesied Messiah was suppose to be a human warlord king...and as such could not forgive sins, heal the sick, or miraculously feed the multitude...but could sin and break the Mosaic Law.

amadeus · Dec 9, 2020

BarnyFife said:
I thought a paradox, by definition, was something hard to understand because of being seemingly contradictory.

Yes, seemingly contradictory as man sees it with his carnal senses and as he tries to logically clarify it. In serving God are we not finding ourselves understanding things we had never even considered previously and sometimes God is giving answers where before we never had any questions?

Is there anything among the apparent paradoxes of men that God cannot understand? Are we not to move closer to being like Him? If we have, or have had paradoxes, will not some [all?] of them be fixed or eliminated or...?

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9

"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." I John 3:1-2

How like unto God may we become? The limit is not, I believe, in God, but in us!

Is there a paradox in God or the things of God... or is it only in the minds and hearts of men that a paradox in Him seems to exist?

What is an AT [Absolute Truth]?

justbyfaith · Dec 9, 2020

Christophany said:
jbf has made a false claim and is in direct contradiction to Jesus teaching on the Sabbath since He is LORD of the Sabbath and He is the One who defines work and what that entails.

Work is defined as what a person does for a living 6 days a week, how he labors and earns a living in providing for his household. Serving God and doing His work on the Sabbath is not " work" that is forbidden in the commandment. Scripture says there are those who work on the Sabbath as in the priests and the high priest. They are doing Gods work, serving Him, obeying Him, worshiping Him on that day.

If is was a sin to do any work for the Lord on the Sabbath then we could not have anyone preach/teach, pastor the flock on the Sabbath since it would be " work " as that is their vocation.

Its pure RUBBISH and the reason why Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and healed and ;picked grain on the Sabbath because it was not work but honoring to God, serving God, worshiping God to do what Jesus was doing.

If Jesus is "guilty " of breaking the letter of the law as @justbyfaith falsely claims then so is the Father guilty of breaking the letter of the law. For Jesus only said in did what He saw the Father saying and doing as per John 5.

hope this helps !!!

The letter of the sabbath day law, in Exodus 20:10, says that thou shalt not do "any" work on the sabbath days.

The spirit of the sabbath day laws are slightly different; allowing for preaching and teaching, doing well, healing.

Since the spirit of the law is what truly matters, what does it matter if Jesus and the Father broke the letter of the sabbath day laws? The letter is inconsequential except to define more accurately what is the spirit of how we are to obey God. Where two different laws are misaligned and it would be a violation of one to keep the other; the greater of two goods and/or the lesser of two evils is to be chosen; and that choice is obedience to the Lord according to the spirit of the law even if it is in violation of some aspect of the letter.

It should be clear that the letter of the sabbath day law, in Exodus 20:10, says that "thou shalt not do any work".

And that Jesus claimed to be doing work on the sabbath day (John 5:16-18). He wasn't lying (because He was indeed without sin); and therefore He did in fact work on the sabbath day. So, my question is, how is that not a violation of the letter of the sabbath day law that says, "thou shalt not do any work on the sabbath days"?

Jesus did not sin in that, because He was indeed the Lord of the sabbath and was come not after a carnal commandment but after the power of an endless life.

Therefore, what I am teaching by this is that the change in law that took place (see Hebrews 7:12) did not have to do with a change in the commandments; but rather it had to do with a change from being bound by the letter to a real obedience to the spirit of what is written.

For, not one jot and not one tittle shall pass away from the law until heaven and earth pass away. How then has the law been changed? It is in that we are no longer condemned over violation of the letter; but also in that we are now even more obedient to the spirit of what is written because the Holy Ghost has come to take residence in our hearts.

Because love is the fulfilling of the law (Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14, 1 John 5:3, 2 John 1:6, Romans 8:4); and through the Holy Ghost the love of the Lord has been shed abroad in the heart of the born again believer in Christ (Romans 5:5).

Therefore what is His true commandment? It is that we believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and that we love one another; even as He gave us commandment (1 John 3:23).

BarneyFife · Dec 9, 2020

MattMooradian said:
If "every day is the sabbath", then the person practicing that will also be at rest on Saturday (and/or Sunday, if you chose).

I believe you are absolutely correct in your attitude toward the Sabbath (I assume you mean Saturday?). But, just think of how wonderful it would be if every day was Saturday - that is the spiritual meaning of the sabbath.

But if every day were the Sabbath, wouldn't that mean no one could eat since they couldn't ever work? I don't understand the spiritual meaning of the Sabbath. I've heard that Christ has taken the place of the Sabbath, but I can't find that clearly taught in the Bible. It would seem to me if a rule was made that was later to be done way, it wouldn't have been given right in the middle of the moral code for God's people, written on tablets of stone.

I've long heard that not only is the Sabbath on our Saturday, but that the 7th day of the week on calendars is actually called the Sabbath in many languages of the world.

BarneyFife · Dec 9, 2020

justbyfaith said:
Since the spirit of the law is what truly matters

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24)

Without the letter of the law, wouldn't it be impossible to learn what is the spirit of the law? It seems to me that the letter declares a principle, whereas the spirit deals more with policy.

BarneyFife · Dec 9, 2020

BarnyFife said:
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24)

Without the letter of the law, wouldn't it be impossible to learn what is the spirit of the law? It seems to me that the letter declares a principle, whereas the spirit deals more with policy.

For instance:

Just off the shore of one of the great lakes is an area that is prone to intermittent deep and shallow parts which has caused distress to swimmers and even loss of life on several occasions. The area is thus posted "NO SWIMMING." If someone had ventured into the area and gotten into trouble, should a lone onlooker with excellent swimming skills and even experience in lifeguard service observe the rule of "NO SWIMMING" and refrain from rendering assistance to the person in peril?

In this case, would not the principle of personal safety and the value of human life (the spirit) be best served by temporarily violating the policy of "NO SWIMMING" (the letter)? And should then the policy (letter) be discarded because it had been shown that it was, at least on one occasion, insufficient to uphold the principle (spirit)?

Circumstances seem to sometimes alter cases without venturing into the area of committing the error of situation ethics. This is illustrated by the Savior in his censuring of the Pharisees:

Luke 14
5And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day? 6And they could not answer him again to these things.

justbyfaith · Dec 9, 2020

BarnyFife said:
I've heard that Christ has taken the place of the Sabbath, but I can't find that clearly taught in the Bible.

Try Matthew 11.28-30...

Mat 11:28, Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29, Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30, For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

BarnyFife said:
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24)

Without the letter of the law, wouldn't it be impossible to learn what is the spirit of the law? It seems to me that the letter declares a principle, whereas the spirit deals more with policy.

Yes; most definitely, the letter of the law does indeed show forth what is for the most part the spirit of the law. It is when letter and letter contradict one another that we obey the greater of two goods or the lesser of two evils (such as when Corrie Ten Boom's family lied to the Nazis in order to preserve human life); and in such cases to do this is to obey the spirit of the law.

Jesus healed on the sabbath in obedience to the command to "love thy neighbor as thyself" although in doing so He was violating the letter of "thou shalt not do any work on the sabbath". Here, the former thing mentioned took precedence over the second thing. In obeying the first, he was being obedient to the spirit of the law although He was violating the letter of the 2nd thing.

Contradiction Or Paradox?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads