Contradiction with Hebrews 10:4
This verse contradicts Leviticus 16:34 by stating that it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Hebrews 10:4: For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Contradiction with Hebrews 10:1
This verse states that the law, having a shadow of good things to come, can never make the comers perfect, contradicting the notion in Leviticus 16:34 of an everlasting atonement statute.
Hebrews 10:1: For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Contradiction with Galatians 2:16
This verse emphasizes that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, which contrasts with the atonement ritual described in Leviticus 16:34.
Galatians 2:16: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Contradiction with Romans 3:20
This verse claims that no one will be justified by the works of the law, involving a contradiction with Leviticus 16:34, which describes a law-based atonement process.
Romans 3:20: Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
Contradiction with Colossians 2:14
This verse refers to the law and its ordinances being nailed to the cross with Christ, contrasting with the ongoing ordinance described in Leviticus 16:34.
Colossians 2:14: Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Paradox #1
The verse describes an everlasting rule for atonement rituals, but historically, these specific rituals ceased after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. Thus, the practice could no longer be performed as described.
Paradox #2
The moral conflict in this context could be about the idea of atonement and forgiveness. Some might see an inconsistency in requiring ritual acts for forgiveness, as it may conflict with the belief in a merciful and forgiving nature of God that doesn't rely on specific rituals. Others might view it as conflicting with a more personal, direct relationship with the divine, where forgiveness is granted through personal repentance rather than ceremonial practices.