Contradiction with Hebrews 9:12
This verse suggests that Christ entered the holy place once for all with His own blood, contrasting the repeated sacrifices for atonement described in Leviticus.
Hebrews 9:12: Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].
Contradiction with Hebrews 10:4
This verse states that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins, contradicting the purpose of the scapegoat in Leviticus 16:10 for atonement.
Hebrews 10:4: For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Contradiction with Jeremiah 31:34
This verse speaks of God's promise to remember sins no more, contradicting the conditional, ritualistic forgiveness represented by the scapegoat.
Jeremiah 31:34: And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Contradiction with Matthew 9:13
Jesus emphasizes mercy over sacrifice, contrasting the ritual requirement of sending the scapegoat for atonement.
Matthew 9:13: But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Contradiction with Psalm 51:16-17
The emphasis on a contrite heart over sacrifices contrasts the ritual emphasis in Leviticus 16:10.
Psalm 51:16-17: For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give [it]: thou delightest not in burnt offering. [else...: or, that I should]
Contradiction with Hebrews 10:18
States that where there is forgiveness, there is no longer any offering for sin, contradicting the need for ongoing rituals like the scapegoat.
Hebrews 10:18: Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin.
Contradiction with Isaiah 1:11-13
Critiques the multitude of sacrifices, suggesting a disconnect with God's desire, as opposed to the prescribed offerings in Leviticus.
Isaiah 1:11-13: To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. [he goats: Heb. great he goats]
Paradox #1
Leviticus 16:10 talks about the ritual of the scapegoat, where one goat is sent into the wilderness to atone for Israel's sins. A possible theological conflict with this concept is the idea of personal responsibility for sin. Some might question how sins can be transferred to an animal, as it seems inconsistent with later biblical teachings that emphasize individual accountability and repentance.
Paradox #2
The moral conflict in that verse can arise from the idea of transferring sins onto an animal, which is then sent away or sacrificed. This practice might seem inconsistent with modern views on personal responsibility, animal rights, and the idea that individuals should face the consequences of their own actions rather than transferring blame to another.