Contradiction with Matthew 5:38-39
Contradicts Matthew 5:30's idea of extreme measures to avoid sin by advocating for non-retaliation instead of cut and throw away a part causing sin.
Matthew 5:38-39: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Contradiction with 1 Corinthians 6:19-20
Emphasizes the body as a temple of the Holy Ghost and contradicts the idea of harming the body as suggested in Matthew 5:30.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20: What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
Contradiction with Ephesians 5:29
Contradicts Matthew 5:30 by highlighting the nurturing and caring of one's own body rather than causing harm to it.
Ephesians 5:29: For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Contradiction with Romans 12:1
Urges presenting the body as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable, contrasting with the concept of dismembering it as implied in Matthew 5:30.
Romans 12:1: I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, [which is] your reasonable service.
Contradiction with 1 Corinthians 3:16-17
States that anyone who destroys God's temple (the body) will be destroyed by God, which contradicts Matthew 5:30's implication of harming one's body.
1 Corinthians 3:16-17: Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
Paradox #1
The contradiction or conflict could be that Matthew 5:30 suggests taking extreme physical action to avoid sin, which might conflict with other teachings that emphasize internal change, forgiveness, and non-violence. It can be inconsistent with messages promoting mercy and transformation of the heart rather than literal interpretations.
Paradox #2
Some people find a contradiction or conflict in this verse because it seems to suggest self-harm or extreme measures to avoid wrongdoing, which contradicts the broader religious teachings against harming the body. This teaching might be seen as symbolic, while others could take it literally, causing confusion or inconsistency in interpretation.
Paradox #3
The verse suggests self-harm as a way to deal with wrongdoing. Scientifically, self-harm is considered harmful and not a healthy or effective solution to problems. It contradicts modern medical and psychological understanding, which encourages seeking professional help and addressing issues through healthier means.
Paradox #4
Matthew 5:30 talks about removing a part of yourself causing you to sin as a way to avoid wrongdoing. The contradiction here could be the literal interpretation of causing physical harm to oneself, which seems inconsistent with the idea of bodily integrity and the teaching of love and care for oneself. The conflict arises in balancing the metaphorical lesson of discipline and control over desires with the ethical implications of advocating self-harm.