Contradiction with Matthew 8:3
Jesus heals a man with leprosy by touching him, contrasting the detailed, prolonged examination in Leviticus 13:5.
Matthew 8:3: And Jesus put forth [his] hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
Contradiction with Luke 5:13
Similar to Matthew 8:3, Jesus touches and heals a man with leprosy instantly.
Luke 5:13: And he put forth [his] hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
Contradiction with John 9:6-7
Jesus heals a blind man by a simple act, diverging from the ritualistic procedure in Leviticus 13:5.
John 9:6-7: When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, [anointed...: or, spread the clay upon the eyes of the blind man]
Contradiction with Acts 10:15
Divine declaration that what God has made clean cannot be called impure, contradicting Leviticus 13:5's notion of uncleanliness.
Acts 10:15: And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.
Contradiction with Galatians 3:13
Christ's redemption from the curse of the law opposes the continuation of ritual processes as in Leviticus 13:5.
Galatians 3:13: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:
Contradiction with Hebrews 10:10
The sanctification through the body of Jesus Christ once for all, contrasts with the repeated ceremonial purity checks in Leviticus 13:5.
Hebrews 10:10: By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].
Contradiction with Mark 1:41-42
Jesus' immediate healing of leprosy without a waiting period directly contrasts the seven-day waiting period in Leviticus 13:5.
Mark 1:41-42: And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth [his] hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
Paradox #1
The contradiction or inconsistency related to Leviticus 13:5 could be its instructions on quarantine and priestly assessment of diseases, which contrasts with modern medical practices and understanding of disease control. Ancient methods might seem inconsistent with today's scientific approaches to diagnosing and managing skin conditions.
Paradox #2
The potential scientific inconsistency is related to the understanding and treatment of diseases. In ancient times, skin conditions were often attributed to religious or moral reasons rather than being understood as medical issues. The method described lacks a scientific basis for diagnosing or treating skin conditions, as modern medicine relies on empirical diagnosis and evidence-based treatment rather than ritual or symbolic practices.