Contradiction with Matthew 15:11
This verse suggests that what enters the mouth does not defile a person, which contradicts Leviticus 17:10's prohibition on consuming blood.
Matthew 15:11: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Contradiction with Acts 10:15
In the context of Peter’s vision, it teaches that what God has cleansed should not be considered impure, potentially contradicting dietary laws like those in Leviticus 17:10.
Acts 10:15: And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.
Contradiction with Romans 14:14
This verse implies that nothing is unclean in itself, conflicting with the prohibition of consuming blood in Leviticus 17:10.
Romans 14:14: I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean. [unclean: Gr. common]
Contradiction with 1 Corinthians 10:25
Advises believers to eat whatever is sold in markets without questioning, which could be seen as contradictory to the strict dietary rule in Leviticus 17:10.
1 Corinthians 10:25: Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, [that] eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
Paradox #1
Leviticus 17:10 discusses the prohibition of consuming blood, which is stated as a commandment. The potential contradiction arises when compared to the New Testament, specifically Acts 15:29, where early Christian leaders advise Gentile converts to abstain from blood among other things, but later passages like Mark 7:18-19 could be interpreted to suggest Jesus declared all foods, potentially including blood, clean. This can create confusion about dietary laws' applicability to Christians.
Paradox #2
Leviticus 17:10 speaks about not consuming blood, as it is considered sacred and meant for atonement. A potential doctrinal inconsistency arises when compared to passages in the New Testament, like Acts 15:29, where early Christians are instructed to abstain from blood, yet there is also a focus on spiritual freedom and not being bound by the Old Law, as seen in letters by Paul. This could create confusion about the relevance of Old Testament laws for Christians.
Paradox #3
Some contradictions arise because different cultures and religions have varied dietary laws and practices. In some ancient societies, the consumption of blood was part of religious rituals or seen as a source of life. This could conflict with certain biblical laws that prohibit consuming blood, causing tension between different cultural or religious practices.
Paradox #4
One potential contradiction in Leviticus 17:10 is the instruction about not consuming blood. Scientifically, humans can digest animal blood, and it even provides nutritional benefits like iron and protein. Rejecting blood is based on religious or cultural reasons rather than scientific ones.
Paradox #5
The contradiction in Leviticus 17:10 could be seen in how it prohibits the consumption of blood, which conflicts with other religious practices or even survival situations where consuming blood might be necessary. This can create tension between following religious rules and practical needs or different cultural practices.