Contradiction with Matthew 25:29
This verse suggests that to those who have, more will be given, which may contradict the idea in Luke 16:12 that being faithful with what is another's will lead to receiving what is one's own.
Matthew 25:29: For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
Contradiction with Matthew 5:42
This verse advocates giving to those who ask and lending without expecting anything in return, which contrasts with the idea of being faithful with what belongs to others.
Matthew 5:42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Contradiction with Acts 20:35
This verse emphasizes the blessing of giving rather than receiving, which may contradict Luke 16:12's focus on being entrusted with material wealth.
Acts 20:35: I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
Contradiction with Matthew 6:19-21
These verses emphasize storing treasures in heaven rather than focusing on earthly wealth, which could contradict the idea of managing another's wealth to gain one's own.
Matthew 6:19-21: Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
Contradiction with James 2:5
This verse states that God has chosen the poor in this world to be rich in faith, which can contradict the implication in Luke 16:12 about gaining possessions through faithfulness.
James 2:5: Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? [of the: or, of that]
Paradox #1
The contradiction or inconsistency in Luke 16:12 could arise from the interpretation of trust and ownership. The verse suggests being faithful with what belongs to others to be trusted with your own. Someone might see a conflict if they struggle with the idea that true ownership or trustworthiness should be inherent, rather than proven through handling another's property. Others might argue that this principle encourages dependency on how others evaluate our actions rather than personal integrity alone.