Contradiction with Acts 16:3
Paul circumcises Timothy, which contradicts his message against the necessity of circumcision in the context of salvation.
Acts 16:3: Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
Contradiction with Acts 21:26
Paul participates in purification rites, which can contradict his stance on the law being fulfilled in Christ.
Acts 21:26: Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
Contradiction with Romans 2:25
Paul argues that circumcision is valuable if the law is obeyed, seemingly contradicting his stance against its necessity.
Romans 2:25: For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
Contradiction with Galatians 6:15
Paul states that circumcision means nothing, despite discussing its persecution implications in Galatians 5:11.
Galatians 6:15: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Contradiction with 1 Corinthians 9:20
Paul mentions becoming as under the law to win those under the law, which can contradict his message of not adhering to the law for salvation.
1 Corinthians 9:20: And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
Contradiction with Philippians 3:5-6
Paul describes his adherence to the law before conversion, contrasting the message against circumcision in Galatians 5:11.
Philippians 3:5-6: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Contradiction with Colossians 2:16-17
Paul advises not to let anyone judge in regard to the law, aligning yet potentially contradicting by involving law observance contrasts.
Colossians 2:16-17: Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: [in meat...: or, for eating and drinking] [respect: or, part]
Paradox #1
The contradiction or inconsistency related to that verse could involve the context of the early Christian debate over circumcision. Paul was addressing conflicts within the early Church about whether non-Jewish converts had to follow Jewish laws. Some might see a contradiction in Paul's past as a strict follower of Jewish law compared to his later teachings of freedom from such laws. However, this is more about changing perspectives rather than a direct inconsistency.
Paradox #2
Galatians 5:11 could present a contradiction if it is seen as advocating for both adherence to traditional laws and freedom from them. If one part of scripture emphasizes keeping certain laws while another part, like this verse, suggests freedom from those laws, it can create confusion about whether believers should follow old practices or embrace new freedoms. However, without additional context, it may not present a direct conflict within its broader theological message.