Contradiction with Galatians 5:2
This verse emphasizes that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you, contradicting the commandment of circumcision in Genesis 17:13.
Galatians 5:2: Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Contradiction with Galatians 6:15
It states that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything but a new creation, opposing the significance given to circumcision in Genesis 17:13.
Galatians 6:15: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Contradiction with Acts 15:1
Some taught that circumcision was not necessary for salvation, which contradicts the everlasting covenant of circumcision in Genesis 17:13.
Acts 15:1: And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Contradiction with Romans 2:28-29
Argues that true circumcision is a matter of the heart, contrasting the physical circumcision covenant described in Genesis 17:13.
Romans 2:28-29: For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Paradox #1
Genesis 17:13 discusses the covenant of circumcision. A potential contradiction or inconsistency arises when this practice is compared with the teachings in the New Testament, specifically where Paul in the book of Galatians argues that circumcision is not necessary for salvation and that faith in Jesus Christ is what truly matters. This can create confusion about whether physical rituals are required for a relationship with God or if faith alone is sufficient.
Paradox #2
Genesis 17:13, which discusses circumcision as a covenant, might seem contradictory to the New Testament teachings that suggest faith in Jesus, rather than following the Old Law, is what grants righteousness. For example, in Galatians, Paul emphasizes faith over the ritual of circumcision. This could lead to perceived inconsistency between the requirement for physical circumcision in Genesis and the emphasis on spiritual belief in the New Testament.
Paradox #3
One possible contradiction with Genesis 17:13 could be related to the practice of circumcision. In the New Testament, particularly in the letters of Paul, there is a shift from the importance of physical circumcision to a focus on spiritual faith and "circumcision of the heart." This philosophical shift could be seen as inconsistent with the Old Testament emphasis on the physical act as a covenant sign.
Paradox #4
Genesis 17:13 discusses the practice of circumcision, which some people argue raises scientific or medical questions. One potential conflict is the ongoing debate about the medical necessity and ethical implications of circumcision. While some argue it has health benefits, others question the ethics of performing it on infants who cannot consent. This creates a conflict between religious practices and modern medical and ethical standards.
Paradox #5
Genesis 17:13 could be seen as morally inconsistent because it involves the practice of circumcision, which might conflict with modern views on bodily autonomy and consent, especially for infants who cannot make the decision themselves. Some people may see this as conflicting with contemporary ideas of personal freedom and individual rights.