Contradiction with Matthew 26:24
Matthew 26:24 suggests that the betrayal is part of divine plan, whereas Luke 22:21 emphasizes the presence of the betrayer among the disciples, without directly attributing it to divine predestination.
Matthew 26:24: The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
Contradiction with John 13:21
John 13:21 indicates Jesus was troubled in spirit when predicting betrayal, whereas Luke 22:21 calmly points out the betrayer's presence.
John 13:21: When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
Contradiction with Acts 1:16
Acts 1:16 implies the betrayal was a fulfillment of Scripture, contrary to Luke 22:21 which does not emphasize the fulfillment of prophecy.
Acts 1:16: Men [and] brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Paradox #1
Theological discussions around that verse may focus on the tension between human free will and divine foreknowledge. Some people might wonder how Judas's betrayal was part of a divine plan and yet he is held accountable for his actions. This raises questions about how God's knowledge of future events intersects with human choice and responsibility.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or conflict in Luke 22:21 could lie in the tension between divine foreknowledge and human free will. The verse suggests that a betrayal is part of a divine plan, which raises questions about whether the betrayer is truly responsible for their actions if it’s all predetermined. This can seem inconsistent with the idea of free will and moral accountability.