Contradiction with Matthew 15:24
This verse contradicts Acts 10:28 as it suggests that Jesus' mission was only to the lost sheep of Israel, implying separation from other nations.
Matthew 15:24: But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 7:2-3
This verse contradicts Acts 10:28 by commanding the Israelites not to make covenants or marriages with other nations, suggesting separation rather than inclusion.
Deuteronomy 7:2-3: And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, [and] utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
Contradiction with Ezra 9:12
This verse contradicts Acts 10:28 as it advises against mingling with other nations, promoting the idea of separation from non-Israelites.
Ezra 9:12: Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave [it] for an inheritance to your children for ever.
Contradiction with Genesis 43:32
This verse contradicts Acts 10:28 by illustrating the cultural separation between Egyptians and Hebrews, implying a practice of separation rather than unity.
Genesis 43:32: And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that [is] an abomination unto the Egyptians.
Contradiction with John 4:9
This verse contradicts Acts 10:28 as it illustrates historical enmity and social barriers between Jews and Samaritans.
John 4:9: Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
Contradiction with Nehemiah 13:1-3
This passage contradicts Acts 10:28 by enforcing a separation between the Israelites and foreigners, reflecting a principle of exclusion.
Nehemiah 13:1-3: On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever; [they...: Heb. there was read] [audience: Heb. ears]
Paradox #1
The verse in question might seem inconsistent with earlier Jewish laws and customs that discouraged association with non-Jews. However, in the context of the New Testament, this reflects a shift toward inclusivity and the spreading of Christianity beyond just the Jewish community. This could be seen as conflicting with earlier beliefs about separation but aligns with the message of universal salvation through Jesus.
Paradox #2
One possible contradiction in Acts 10:28 could involve the Old Testament laws concerning purity and the separation of Jews from Gentiles. In the Old Testament, Jews were instructed to avoid certain interactions with Gentiles to maintain ritual purity. However, this verse from Acts suggests a change in understanding, as it emphasizes that God does not show favoritism and that all people are acceptable to Him. This could appear inconsistent with prior teachings about the separation of Jews and Gentiles.
Paradox #3
The contradiction in the context of Acts 10:28 could be the traditional Jewish laws against mingling with non-Jews, which were deeply rooted in Jewish culture and religious practices. This verse reflects a change in perspective, where Peter realizes that God does not show favoritism and that he should not consider any person impure or unclean. This represents a significant shift from earlier Jewish customs, highlighting an inconsistency between long-standing traditions and the evolving understanding within early Christianity.
Paradox #4
The contradiction or conflict that might arise from Acts 10:28 is the issue of discrimination and inclusion. The verse suggests that, previously, there was a belief against associating with certain people, but this guidance is challenged. This introduces a moral conflict between past rules or traditions and new understandings that endorse equality and inclusion among all people. This highlights the tension between adhering to tradition and embracing more universal or inclusive values.