Bible "contradictions" for Christians part 1 - Eternal Life

To the fellow Christians on this board:
The New Testament speaks of how eternal life is obtained in several passages. For example:
Jesus says in the book of Matthew:
[Mat 19:16-17 NASB95] 16 And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" 17 And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is [only] One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

.. but Paul says in the book of Romans:
[Rom 6:23 NASB95] 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

While Jesus says to keep the Commandments to obtain eternal life, Paul writes that eternal life is the free gift of God.

Is this a Contradiction??

 

While I do think there are several contradictions in the Bible, I don't really find this one to be persuasive. Paul makes it clear that there are conditions for accepting this gift, so a Christian could always say that keeping the commandments is part of that. Though I think Paul is more of the opinion that you accept the gift and THEN you keep the commandments, it gets a little too convoluted.

 

You may be referring to this:
[Eph 1:13 NASB95] 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

also:
[Eph 2:8-9 NASB95] 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

The free gift is to those that believe APART from commandment keeping.

 

I believe Romans was written after the crucifixion so it is not necessarily a contradiction since Jesus had not been sacrificed for the sins of humanity yet when he said the earlier thing.

 

I don't see a contradiction. Jesus said to keep the commandments so as to live. Paul said that sin (which is violating commandments} brings death. It is the same thing, said another way. But the goal in both pointers is life eternal, and it is free, always was and always will be. The difference that stands out to me is that Jesus said to keep the commandments. And Paul essentially said to hear and follow Jesus. So Jesus deferred to God the Father. And Paul deferred to Jesus. So to believe Paul is to believe Jesus. And to believe Jesus is to believe God the Father. It is an orderly hierarchy and a strong bond, rather than a disassociated contradiction.

 

It may seem like a contradiction........

Perhaps the answer is in the differences in the Hebrew language and the Greek language vs King James English........

For example... the word translated "forever" in Hebrew and Greek means something like .... "until the end of conditions last".... which has a very different meaning in King James English. The English word "forever" certainly fits with Eternal Life somehow or another????

Ron Dart once explained that English was a language that was greatly affected by the legal profession.... and by lawmakers....... Hebrew and Greek apparently are far less useful to legislators and lawyers in the writing of legal documents that are relatively free of loopholes.........

I hope that that helps.....

 

The Bible has many contradictions, because God didn't write it, and neither did Shakespeare. Men are flawed. Man cannot understand God. These are their views, not mine. However, these particular views were the very foundation of the reformations, that did away with things like stoning women for not bearing you a son. Many argue that this view not being shared by Muslims, will prevent them from ever having a similar reformation. That's too bad. Mankind learns more as we move through time. If you can never change the book, man you better really like what is in it.

But to your point, I think it's Lutherans who don't even believe in an afterlife. Man what a tough sell for the pastor. Come to church, even though it doesn't matter.

 

All or most of the New Testament was written by people we would recognize today as Messianic Jews. The Old Testament and the Apocrypha were of course written by Jews.

Anyone who has known and liked as many Jews as I have knows that they love to argue. Contradictions in the Bible intrigue me but they do not disturb my Christian faith. I think good behavior is more important than believing the right doctrines.

 

Why do you believe that the new testament was written by Messianic Jews?

 

Christianity began as a Jewish sect.

 

Which gentiles then turned into Christianity and used it to conquer the world in the name of God, without Gods express command. There is nothing in Jesus Christs gospel that counsels us to conquer nations. I don't know what's worse, the Jews rejection and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, or the bastardization of his gospel by gentiles.

 

The books of the new Testament are written in highly educated Greek. It is unlikely that Messianic Jews wrote them. It is also very unlikely that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote the gospels for that same reason. Being able to write at all was very uncommon in those days and the opportunity to learn to write in Greek in Judea was even more uncommon. If a person did learn to write in Judea back then, they would be learning Hebrew. They would also tend to be very wealthy since only the very wealthy were known to write. They could also be associated with a group like the Essenes perhaps but again, the Essenes were not highly educated Greeks. Maybe they dictated their story to people who could write Greek, but even the titles "the Gospel according to x" were added much later. Its much simpler to conclude that the gospels were written by Greeks.

Its also interesting that the book of John is so different from the synoptic gospels. It indicates that the three synoptic gospels were likely copying each other (if I remember right Mark and Luke are mainly copying Matthew) but the book of John, written later than the other three, comes out the gate making these claims that the word is God etc which is a very Greek concept. In general, John is much more aligned with the philosophies pushed by Christians in the late 1st and early second centuries when it was written than it is with the synoptic gospels which were mid to late 1st century.

 

No it's not. You might want to look up the "Faith versus Works" debate when it comes to the issue of Salvation. There are different protestant Christian sects that have different views on this, or even disagree a little bit.

Ultimately though it's not really a fundamental contradiction. As James says, "faith without works is dead". So while it is ultimately faith that saves, the decision not to follow the law means that real faith was not really there. Most take this to refer to serious and consistent sinning without attempt to stop.
Obviously no one is going to keep the commandments without faith. So the instructions were not incorrect.

Elsewhere he says "...whosoever believeth in [me] will not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

So if you want to view this as a contradiction, it's a contradiction coming from the same person.

Another difference is that Jesus is talking to his closer disciples and more in private when he discusses believing in him, whereas his preaching about following the law is more addressed to a very public audience.

 

Depending on how you read Paul's statement, it suggests that there is a connection between sin and eternal life.
In other words, you shouldn't read it to suggest that the gift of God will just automatically counteract all sin, in every situation.
The traditional Christian view is that absolutely any sin is forgivable and that person can go into heaven, but only so long as there is repentance. (Repentance usually means that person will not, or would not continue to do that same thing again, or at least tries not to do it)

By Paul's statement, he is simply setting up a dichotomy between sin, on the one hand, and eternal life on the other, that the two are opposed to each other. And also suggesting that the gift of God can overcome sin.

 

All Jewish children were educated from the age of 5-6 till 12 (Adulthood). Jesus was a 'carpenters' son and he was well enough schooled to impress the religious leaders when presented at the Temple at the age of 12. For 'students' as impressive as Jesus there was the possibility that a teacher - later called Rabbi - would pick him up as a pupil and bring him on in the knowledge of the Tanakh. This is whatr I believe happened to Jesus in part of the missing years. Often the teaching would go on until the student was able to express himself, discuss with others and put forward his own interpretation. - a thesis? One way the Rabbi tradition was carried on. When asked by his disciples why he spoke in parables he told them it was because they knew them. By inference the Gentiles didn't. They had learnt in the same way as Jesus and could see that most of his parables were related to the perceived Jewish belief of their relationship with their father god, Jahweh, in the OT. The Good Shepherd, the Vine etc are all in this vein.
I'm not suggesting they learnt Greek, by the way. Though Paul would have done. He also learnt Greek philosophy under Gamaliel and used it to compare their philosophy with Judaism. That was the essence of his success with the Greeks as opposed to his own people.

 

The free gift of God is only for those who accepted the gift and were crucified with Christ. The Holy Spirit is not given for man to live for his flesh. The Spirit is given to help fulfill the commandments of Jesus Christ - see Matthew 5-6-7. These commandments of Christ are much more difficult than the commandments of the law, which Jesus calls “the least commandments.” Those who follow this path of Christ’s sorrows receive eternal life. The rest (the majority) are deceiving themselves.

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. (John 14:21)

First, a Christian must fulfill the commandments of Jesus Christ. It doesn't happen naturally - to turn your cheek when someone hits you. After a person fulfills the commandments of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus appears to him. And then Jesus speaks to the person the WORD, specifically to him, the WORD, which this person must fulfill. The rich young man, who kept the COMMANDMENTS, could not carry out Christ's WORD to him. But the one who fulfills the Word receives further:

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. (John 14:23)

That is, ascension into eternal life is a long process, and not a freebie, as someone might think from one statement of the Apostle Paul. But Paul did not teach about freebies. We must read all of Paul's letters.

 

I don’t think any of that happened because the religious movement of Jesus was focused on the poor and he was directly opposed to the Pharisees - those who would one day become Rabbis. Consider the story of Jesus teaching in the temple. In it he shows disrespect and disobedience to his parents. Personally I think it is unlikely to be true. It’s just speculation of course but seems out of character.

 

I was talking about Jesus as a child and youth. Becoming a teacher does not mean he could not have sympathy for, or serve the poor, in later life. He was known to visit ordinary people and stay with them, sympathise with them. On the other hand he lambasted the teachers/Rabbis for THEIR attitude. In one supposed story he likened as gentile woman to a dog begging for crumbs.

 

It might be a bit like the immortal words of our 42nd president (thanks to Mr. Perot); “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”. Or maybe not.

 

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What exactly is "sex???"

Well....... if Ms. Lewinsky had an orgasm...... then I would guess that she had had "sex?!"

But if only Bill had an orgasm..... then Bill definitely had had "sex!"

And speaking of sex:

The Trigger of Orgasms: Margaret Birkin’s NDE
BY KEVIN WILLIAMSPOSTED ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2019

 

No contradiction. The difference is that Jesus hadn't died for our sins when speaking with the gentleman in Matthew...but if you read on just a little...Jesus tells the man to give all away that is important to him and follow Jesus. This is the picture of Jesus, worthy of worship and the gift of our salvation.

 

I can't recall where I read it, but one author said "not all Pharisees were scribes, but all scribes are Pharisees", not exactly true but not all Pharisees were teachers; it was one of several sects splitting Jews apart in the Christian era.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jesus/Scribes-and-Pharisees

Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus
In the 1st century, scribes and Pharisees were two largely distinct groups, though presumably some scribes were Pharisees. Scribes had knowledge of the law and could draft legal documents (contracts for marriage, divorce, loans, inheritance, mortgages, the sale of land, and the like). Every village had at least one scribe. Pharisees were members of a party that believed in resurrection and in following legal traditions that were ascribed not to the Bible but to “the traditions of the fathers.” Like the scribes, they were also well-known legal experts: hence the partial overlap of membership of the two groups. It appears from subsequent rabbinic traditions, however, that most Pharisees were small landowners and traders, not professional scribes.

In Mark’s view, Jesus’ main adversaries in Galilee were scribes, but, according to Matthew, they were Pharisees. These apparently conflicting views are readily reconciled: men knowledgeable about Jewish law and tradition would have scrutinized Jesus carefully, and it is likely that both scribes and Pharisees challenged his behaviour and teaching, as the Gospels indicate (e.g., Mark 2:6, 16; 3:22; Matthew 9:11; 12:2). According to one passage, the Pharisees (along with the Herodians, Mark adds) planned to destroy Jesus (Matthew 12:14; Mark 3:6). If the report of this plot is accurate, however, it seems that nothing came of it, since the Pharisees did not play a significant role in the events that led to Jesus’ death. Mark and Luke assign them no role, while Matthew mentions them only once (Matthew 27:62).


Same goes for the 'Essenes'; the term was a generic reference to several sects living apart from the Temple cult mainstream; the sect who accumulated the Dead Sea Scrolls were just one of the sects preferring the wilderness to the corruption of the Temple cult and the cities.They were not all the same sects.

 

Just the opposite; Greek culture and language had a huge influence on Jewish scholars in the preceding centuries; the Greeks founded many cities in the region as well. In fact Jews fought a civil war between the 'purists' and the Jews who favored Greek culture. It was this genocide attempt by the 'purist' Jews to wipe out all the Greek influences in the surrounding region that first attracted the Romans attention. They got nervous when local states launched expansionist campaigns near their borders.

 

Jesus was neither Pharisee or scribe. He was a teacher - later called Rabbis. He is often called teacher.
Jewish children were taught in Jewish schools usually run by the local synagogue Rabbi. From the age of 5 they were taught to read and write and study the Tanakh. At the age of adulthood 13 they were presented at the Temple where their knowledge was often tested. Learned scholars like Jesus were often taken under the wing of a teacher/Rabbi for further education in the scriptures. This would last until the scholar was able to interprete the scriptures in his own words and discuss with other scholars and teacher his own views. Eventually to be proficient enough to become a teacher/Rabbi on his own. They were not scribes or Pharisees but teachers.
The idea that Jesus knowledge came from his supposed divinity is wrong. His knowledge came from his schooling. Of course Jesus believed in Noah, Abraham, Moses etc. etc. because this had been drummed into him from an early age. It's called indoctrination - and the church practised it for centuries. He had no archeaology or real knowledge of the ancient times - just what he had been taught.
There is nothing in the Gospels nativity stories that makes Jesus divine, despite what people say. The stories are simply cobbled together by Matthew and Luke, contradict each other are refuted by the conditions and laws - Roman and Jewish - of the time.
Jesus was a Jewish preacher. Born of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem in Zebulon - just 5 miles from Nazareth where Joseph had his business.

 

I didn't say he was, and I've said he was truly a human from birth to death. I don't know what you're responding to, maybe just talking to yourself again.

In other news,there is evidence he was was a student of Hillel, as there is evidence Paul was a student of Gamaliel.