Contradictions In The Bible, And The Rationalizations For Them

[SkepticalDaniel]

I'm sure, if you've read the Bible before, you've noticed contradictions before.

 

"If we read the Bible at face value, without a preconceived bias for finding errors, we will find it to be a coherent, consistent, and relatively easy-to-understand book."

 

-S. Michael Houdmann

 

The problem is, some of us have read the Bible at face-value without the "preconceived biases" and what not, and what we did find were problems. In fact, as I well later explain in my continuing de-conversion series, everytime I would read the Bible, I'd find nothing but errors, even when I would pray to God over and over again for understanding.

 

This was the first contradiction that I noticed:

 

Does God Tempt People?

 

No

 

James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:"

 

Yes

 

Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am."

 

The rationalization: "Words have different meanings!"

 

The Hebrew word for "tempt" in Genesis 22:1 is Strong's H5254 which means "to test; by implication to attempt: - adventure, assay, prove, tempt, try."

 

The Greek word for "tempt" in James 1:13 is Strong's G3985 which means "to test (objectively), that is, endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline: - assay, examine, go about, prove, tempt (-er), try."

 

So in all senses of the definition, I've come to the conclusion that Genesis 22:1 and James 1:13 are in contradiction with each other. I've got more contradictions, but please share your favorite one.

[TerranceG]

Yes...there are many...which is exactly what you would expect in a collection of writings that spans hundreds of years and has many authors. Each one had their own agenda in mind and often even used the words of another Biblical author and changed them enough to bring them in line with their own perspective.

 

(Look into issues with Mathew and Luke using Mark as a source and amending his wording and adding to it)

 

But the most damaging realization for me personally was to learn that scholars see only 7 of the letters of Paul as being undisputed. Yes...6 of them are suspect...and probably written by others in the name of Paul. And of course the "Pastoral Epistles" are even more assuredly written pseudonymously. (In the name of someone who didn't actually write them)

 

The contradictions pale in comparison to those issues in my opinion.

[SkepticalDaniel]

Yes...there are many...which is exactly what you would expect in a collection of writings that spans hundreds of years and has many authors. Each one had their own agenda in mind and often even used the words of another Biblical author and changed them enough to bring them in line with their own perspective.

 

(Look into issues with Mathew and Luke using Mark as a source and amending his wording and adding to it)

 

But the most damaging realization for me personally was to learn that scholars see only 7 of the letters of Paul as being undisputed. Yes...6 of them are suspect...and probably written by others in the name of Paul. And of course the "Pastoral Epistles" are even more assuredly written pseudonymously. (In the name of someone who didn't actually write them)

 

The contradictions pale in comparison to those issues in my opinion.

What also did it for me was learning that Mark was the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels.

[quinntar]

I'm sure, if you've read the Bible before, you've noticed contradictions before.

 

"If we read the Bible at face value, without a preconceived bias for finding errors, we will find it to be a coherent, consistent, and relatively easy-to-understand book."

 

-S. Michael Houdmann

 

The problem is, some of us have read the Bible at face-value without the "preconceived biases" and what not, and what we did find were problems. In fact, as I well later explain in my continuing de-conversion series, everytime I would read the Bible, I'd find nothing but errors, even when I would pray to God over and over again for understanding.

 

This was the first contradiction that I noticed:

 

Does God Tempt People?

 

No

 

James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:"

 

Yes

 

Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am."

 

The rationalization: "Words have different meanings!"

 

The Hebrew word for "tempt" in Genesis 22:1 is Strong's H5254 which means "to test; by implication to attempt: - adventure, assay, prove, tempt, try."

 

The Greek word for "tempt" in James 1:13 is Strong's G3985 which means "to test (objectively), that is, endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline: - assay, examine, go about, prove, tempt (-er), try."

 

So in all senses of the definition, I've come to the conclusion that Genesis 22:1 and James 1:13 are in contradiction with each other. I've got more contradictions, but please share your favorite one.

Yours has to hit the top Daniel, that's the first time I've picked that up.

[readyforchange]

One of the contradictions used to support the Documentary Hypothesis - Did Abram/Abraham know Yahweh by the name "Yahweh"?
 
Yes
 
Genesis 15:6-8
6 Then Abram believed Yahweh, and that faith was regarded as the basis of Abram’s approval by Yahweh. 7 Then Yahweh said to him, “I am Yahweh, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land so that you will take possession of it.” 8 Abram asked, “Adonay Yahweh, how can I be certain that I will take possession of it?” (Names of God translation)
 
No

 

Exodus 6:2-3
2 Elohim spoke to Moses, “I am Yahweh. 3 I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shadday, but I didn’t make myself known to them by my name, Yahweh. (Names of God translation)

[♦ ficino ♦]

One of the contradictions used to support the Documentary Hypothesis - Did Abram/Abraham know Yahweh by the name "Yahweh"?

 

Yes

 

Genesis 15:6-8

6 Then Abram believed Yahweh, and that faith was regarded as the basis of Abram’s approval by Yahweh. 7 Then Yahweh said to him, “I am Yahweh, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land so that you will take possession of it.” 8 Abram asked, “Adonay Yahweh, how can I be certain that I will take possession of it?” (Names of God translation)

 

No

 

 

Exodus 6:2-3

2 Elohim spoke to Moses, “I am Yahweh. 3 I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shadday, but I didn’t make myself known to them by my name, Yahweh. (Names of God translation)

Interesting, I never thought about this. What lame refutation do fundy apologists pull out of their ---?

[♦ Fuego ♦]

Check this out: Exodus 24

⁹ Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up ¹⁰ and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. ¹¹ But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

 

Nothing about not seeing his face or only seeing his backside like Moses was told another time. Kinda straightforward "saw God".

[♦ ficino ♦]

Check this out: Exodus 24

⁹ Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up ¹⁰ and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. ¹¹ But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

 

Nothing about not seeing his face or only seeing his backside like Moses was told another time. Kinda straightforward "saw God".

But it's totally not a contradiction because shut up, that's why.

[PurpleStarGirl]

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

— Acts 9:7

 

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

— Acts 22:9

 

Both verses refer to Paul's conversion to Christianity. The first one had the men traveling with Paul hearing God's voice but not seeing God; the second one has them seeing light but not hearing God's voice. This is an obvious contradiction of the account. 

 

If you can't decide what happened and feel the need to have differing stories on what happend on the road to Damacus, just admit that it did not happen at all.

[Guest Furball]

How about the contradiction of jesus after he was resurrected. Remember when he was with mary and told her not to touch him because he had not yet ascended to the father? Then why did he allow doubting thomas to to touch him (a lot) by sticking his fingers into the nail prints on his hands as well as reach his hand into his side? 

 

Jesus: Mary don't touch me!

Jesus: Thomas touch me all you you want. 

[bornagainathiest]

How about the contradiction of jesus after he was resurrected. Remember when he was with mary and told her not to touch him because he had not yet ascended to the father? Then why did he allow doubting thomas to to touch him (a lot) by sticking his fingers into the nail prints on his hands as well as reach his hand into his side? 

 

Jesus: Mary don't touch me!

Jesus: Thomas touch me all you you want. 

 

Sorry Furball, but there's a loophole in your argument.

A week elapses between Mary first meeting Jesus outside the tomb and Thomas being told by Jesus to put his fingers into the nail and spear wounds.

 

John 20 : 26 & 27

 

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

 

Before that, most of a day elapses between Mary's early morning 'Do-not-touch-me' meeting with Jesus and his evening 'Receive-the-holy-spirit' appearance to the disciples (Thomas excluded) in the same locked room.  So, a Christian apologist might legitimately claim that since Jesus teleports into the locked room, he's clearly visited his Father in heaven in the intervening hours and received authority from his Dad to breathe out the holy spirit upon them.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Guest Furball]

 

How about the contradiction of jesus after he was resurrected. Remember when he was with mary and told her not to touch him because he had not yet ascended to the father? Then why did he allow doubting thomas to to touch him (a lot) by sticking his fingers into the nail prints on his hands as well as reach his hand into his side? 

 

Jesus: Mary don't touch me!

Jesus: Thomas touch me all you you want. 

 

Sorry Furball, but there's a loophole in your argument.

A week elapses between Mary first meeting Jesus outside the tomb and Thomas being told by Jesus to put his fingers into the nail and spear wounds.

 

John 20 : 26 & 27

 

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

 

Before that, most of a day elapses between Mary's early morning 'Do-not-touch-me' meeting with Jesus and his evening 'Receive-the-holy-spirit' appearance to the disciples (Thomas excluded) in the same locked room.  So, a Christian apologist might legitimately claim that since Jesus teleports into the locked room, he's clearly visited his Father in heaven in the intervening hours and received authority from his Dad to breathe out the holy spirit upon them.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

But he didn't ascend to his father until the book of acts which was after thomas put his hands all over him in the book of john. 

 

Thanks though.

 

My warmest atheist regards,

 

Furball

[readyforchange]

 

One of the contradictions used to support the Documentary Hypothesis - Did Abram/Abraham know Yahweh by the name "Yahweh"?

 

Yes

 

Genesis 15:6-8

6 Then Abram believed Yahweh, and that faith was regarded as the basis of Abram’s approval by Yahweh. 7 Then Yahweh said to him, “I am Yahweh, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land so that you will take possession of it.” 8 Abram asked, “Adonay Yahweh, how can I be certain that I will take possession of it?” (Names of God translation)

 

No

 

 

Exodus 6:2-3

2 Elohim spoke to Moses, “I am Yahweh. 3 I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shadday, but I didn’t make myself known to them by my name, Yahweh. (Names of God translation)

Interesting, I never thought about this. What lame refutation do fundy apologists pull out of their ---?

 

Ficino, here is one from the website ChristianThinkTank - http://christianthinktank.com/qyhwh.html.  Even considering a Christian perspective, I do not think this explanation would be very satisfying. There may be other apologetics somewhere. CARM has an apologetic response for Exodus 6:2-3 but it is more directed at whether anyone has seen God or not - http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/has-anyone-seen-god-or-not

 

Dr. DiMattei has a good webpage that gives the background for this contradiction on his website - http://contradictionsinthebible.com/when-was-the-name-yahweh-first-invoked/

[srd44]

 

 

One of the contradictions used to support the Documentary Hypothesis - Did Abram/Abraham know Yahweh by the name "Yahweh"?

 

Yes

 

Genesis 15:6-8

6 Then Abram believed Yahweh, and that faith was regarded as the basis of Abram’s approval by Yahweh. 7 Then Yahweh said to him, “I am Yahweh, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land so that you will take possession of it.” 8 Abram asked, “Adonay Yahweh, how can I be certain that I will take possession of it?” (Names of God translation)

 

No

 

 

Exodus 6:2-3

2 Elohim spoke to Moses, “I am Yahweh. 3 I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shadday, but I didn’t make myself known to them by my name, Yahweh. (Names of God translation)

Interesting, I never thought about this. What lame refutation do fundy apologists pull out of their ---?

 

Ficino, here is one from the website ChristianThinkTank - http://christianthinktank.com/qyhwh.html.  Even considering a Christian perspective, I do not think this explanation would be very satisfying. There may be other apologetics somewhere. CARM has an apologetic response for Exodus 6:2-3 but it is more directed at whether anyone has seen God or not - http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/has-anyone-seen-god-or-not

 

Dr. DiMattei has a good webpage that gives the background for this contradiction on his website - http://contradictionsinthebible.com/when-was-the-name-yahweh-first-invoked/

 

 

Hi. I am Steven DiMattei. I used to post here more often, but wandered off. I did start the contradictionsinthebible.com blog in 2013 intending to post 1 contradiction a day and explain the rationalization behind them---competing textual traditions, the fact that Israelite scribes, storytellers, etc. told Israel's stories with variation over the centuries that they were told. Indeed as you astute readers have noticed, the biblical texts themselves bear witness to this.

 

Although I have lost the habit of posting 1 contradiction a day, I have currently only reached the book of Numbers at contradiction #345. I will soon start back up with Deuteronomy, which offers some unique examples, As you may know, the book presents itself as a renarrtion of earlier events by Moses. But Exodus and NUmbers now preserve some of these stories/events as they were recited in an earlier tradition. What we will examine on my website is that when the author of Deuteronomy has Moses renarrate these past stories/events, he radically modifies them in stark contradictory terms. As a biblical scholar what I'm more interested in conveying to the public is not necessarily the fact that the Bible preserves these variant tellings of Israel's traditions, but more so have them understand why this later Deuteronomic scribe has his Moses consciously alter these earlier traditions. This allows us to get a look at this later scribes differing theological and ideological agendas.

 

I also might want to reiterate that I recently published a book, Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate, that does attempt to put forward the textual data that convincingly displays the hand of two authors who held competing views and beliefs about the nature and creation of the world and of man and woman in Genesis 1 and 2-3. I know; that's a big claim, "convincingly," but once you get into the Hebrew text, the texts themselves make a rather strong and convincing case for dual authorship. I just, and still am, running a AMA on the book over at reddit. You might want to take a look there... https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/4vbv3q/i_am_a_biblical_scholar_author_and_contributor_to/

 

cheers

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

How about the contradiction of jesus after he was resurrected. Remember when he was with mary and told her not to touch him because he had not yet ascended to the father? Then why did he allow doubting thomas to to touch him (a lot) by sticking his fingers into the nail prints on his hands as well as reach his hand into his side? 

 

Jesus: Mary don't touch me!

Jesus: Thomas touch me all you you want. 

 

Sorry Furball, but there's a loophole in your argument.

A week elapses between Mary first meeting Jesus outside the tomb and Thomas being told by Jesus to put his fingers into the nail and spear wounds.

 

John 20 : 26 & 27

 

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

 

Before that, most of a day elapses between Mary's early morning 'Do-not-touch-me' meeting with Jesus and his evening 'Receive-the-holy-spirit' appearance to the disciples (Thomas excluded) in the same locked room.  So, a Christian apologist might legitimately claim that since Jesus teleports into the locked room, he's clearly visited his Father in heaven in the intervening hours and received authority from his Dad to breathe out the holy spirit upon them.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

But he didn't ascend to his father until the book of acts which was after thomas put his hands all over him in the book of john. 

 

Thanks though.

 

My warmest atheist regards,

 

Furball

 

 

Yes, Furball.

 

But a Christian apologist could argue for two ascensions.  

A secret ascension, witnessed by nobody and a final ascension, witnessed by his disciples.  The first, secret ascension came directly after his early morning encounter with Mary Magdalene and before his evening appearance in the locked room.  The second ascension was in the book of Acts.  The line of this argument being that Jesus needed to present himself to his Father in heaven and receive the Father's authority and blessing to give the holy spirit and to forgive sins.  

 

21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 

22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 

23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

 

Ok, it stretches scripture to breaking point - but some Christians will do that to resolve Biblical contradictions.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

 

One of the contradictions used to support the Documentary Hypothesis - Did Abram/Abraham know Yahweh by the name "Yahweh"?

 

Yes

 

Genesis 15:6-8

6 Then Abram believed Yahweh, and that faith was regarded as the basis of Abram’s approval by Yahweh. 7 Then Yahweh said to him, “I am Yahweh, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land so that you will take possession of it.” 8 Abram asked, “Adonay Yahweh, how can I be certain that I will take possession of it?” (Names of God translation)

 

No

 

 

Exodus 6:2-3

2 Elohim spoke to Moses, “I am Yahweh. 3 I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shadday, but I didn’t make myself known to them by my name, Yahweh. (Names of God translation)

Interesting, I never thought about this. What lame refutation do fundy apologists pull out of their ---?

 

Ficino, here is one from the website ChristianThinkTank - http://christianthinktank.com/qyhwh.html.  Even considering a Christian perspective, I do not think this explanation would be very satisfying. There may be other apologetics somewhere. CARM has an apologetic response for Exodus 6:2-3 but it is more directed at whether anyone has seen God or not - http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/has-anyone-seen-god-or-not

 

Dr. DiMattei has a good webpage that gives the background for this contradiction on his website - http://contradictionsinthebible.com/when-was-the-name-yahweh-first-invoked/

 

 

Hi. I am Steven DiMattei. I used to post here more often, but wandered off. I did start the contradictionsinthebible.com blog in 2013 intending to post 1 contradiction a day and explain the rationalization behind them---competing textual traditions, the fact that Israelite scribes, storytellers, etc. told Israel's stories with variation over the centuries that they were told. Indeed as you astute readers have noticed, the biblical texts themselves bear witness to this.

 

Although I have lost the habit of posting 1 contradiction a day, I have currently only reached the book of Numbers at contradiction #345. I will soon start back up with Deuteronomy, which offers some unique examples, As you may know, the book presents itself as a renarrtion of earlier events by Moses. But Exodus and NUmbers now preserve some of these stories/events as they were recited in an earlier tradition. What we will examine on my website is that when the author of Deuteronomy has Moses renarrate these past stories/events, he radically modifies them in stark contradictory terms. As a biblical scholar what I'm more interested in conveying to the public is not necessarily the fact that the Bible preserves these variant tellings of Israel's traditions, but more so have them understand why this later Deuteronomic scribe has his Moses consciously alter these earlier traditions. This allows us to get a look at this later scribes differing theological and ideological agendas.

 

I also might want to reiterate that I recently published a book, Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate, that does attempt to put forward the textual data that convincingly displays the hand of two authors who held competing views and beliefs about the nature and creation of the world and of man and woman in Genesis 1 and 2-3. I know; that's a big claim, "convincingly," but once you get into the Hebrew text, the texts themselves make a rather strong and convincing case for dual authorship. I just, and still am, running a AMA on the book over at reddit. You might want to take a look there... https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/4vbv3q/i_am_a_biblical_scholar_author_and_contributor_to/

 

cheers

 

Hello Steven, good to see you back on here! I look forward to reading what you wrote about this contradiction.

 

I was imagining that Stephan Huller over on Early Writings (I stopped hanging out there some time ago) might say that the aspect of G-D that he invoked in his "Ish/Esh" riffs was what was visible. That G-D is unseen but that this emanation or whatever is what disclosed itself to humans.

 

I'm guessing that the rabbis had ways of explaining this, but I'm too enmeshed in the fourth century BCE Greece to go poke around for them.

 

Cheers, f

[readyforchange]

Hi. I am Steven DiMattei. I used to post here more often, but wandered off. I did start the contradictionsinthebible.com blog in 2013 intending to post 1 contradiction a day and explain the rationalization behind them---competing textual traditions, the fact that Israelite scribes, storytellers, etc. told Israel's stories with variation over the centuries that they were told. Indeed as you astute readers have noticed, the biblical texts themselves bear witness to this.

 

Although I have lost the habit of posting 1 contradiction a day, I have currently only reached the book of Numbers at contradiction #345. I will soon start back up with Deuteronomy, which offers some unique examples, As you may know, the book presents itself as a renarrtion of earlier events by Moses. But Exodus and NUmbers now preserve some of these stories/events as they were recited in an earlier tradition. What we will examine on my website is that when the author of Deuteronomy has Moses renarrate these past stories/events, he radically modifies them in stark contradictory terms. As a biblical scholar what I'm more interested in conveying to the public is not necessarily the fact that the Bible preserves these variant tellings of Israel's traditions, but more so have them understand why this later Deuteronomic scribe has his Moses consciously alter these earlier traditions. This allows us to get a look at this later scribes differing theological and ideological agendas.

 

I also might want to reiterate that I recently published a book, Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate, that does attempt to put forward the textual data that convincingly displays the hand of two authors who held competing views and beliefs about the nature and creation of the world and of man and woman in Genesis 1 and 2-3. I know; that's a big claim, "convincingly," but once you get into the Hebrew text, the texts themselves make a rather strong and convincing case for dual authorship. I just, and still am, running a AMA on the book over at reddit. You might want to take a look there... https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/4vbv3q/i_am_a_biblical_scholar_author_and_contributor_to/

 

cheers

Hi Steven. Thanks for the additional background on the perspectives of these two sources. I've learned a lot on your website and will look forward to your upcoming posts on Deuteronomy. I heard about your new book on the Genesis and the creationism debate. This is a topic I've been interested in for some time, along with other ancient near eastern creation stories like the Enuma Elish and how they may have influenced the Biblical creation accounts. Reading through the comments on your reddit link as well.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Yes, thanks again, Steven. I enjoyed your article on the "when did Yahweh say they could call him Yahweh?" question.

 

BTW I noticed in the comments to it on your blog, someone asked about an evangelical who had argued that "not" doesn't mean "not" in the relevant verse of Ex. 6 but something else. Did you ever find that evangelical's article? Does loh sometimes not mean "not"?

[srd44]

Did you ever find that evangelical's article? Does loh sometimes not mean "not"?

 

Hi ficino, nice to reconnect with you. No, I never bothered to look. A lone evangelic trying an apologetic wriggling of the text versus a tradition of haveing been correctly translated by Hebraists ---- doesn't interest me.

 

But I would agree in principle. sometimes no means yes.  

 

[L.B.]

"Jesus, being in very nature God..."

 

"I have not yet ascended to my Father and your Father, to MY GOD and your God".

 

Then there's

 

"if you confess with your mouth the lord Jesus and believe in your heart that GOD raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

 

and

 

"every tongue shall confess that Jesus is lord to the glory of GOD the Father."

 

Those are agreeing statements, but they both show that Jesus could not possibly have been God, since both verses attribute power and glory to "God" BECAUSE OF his actions concerning Jesus and distinct from the person of Jesus.

 

The Epistles also say that when all the enemies of the world have been put under the authority of Jesus, Jesus will then hand over all the rule of the world to GOD who orchestrated it all - again, clearly showing a hierarchy with a submissive Jesus as the tool by which "God" accomplishes these things. Certainly the stories say that Jesus is a supreme ruler of some sort, but he is EXALTED to or established in that position BY GOD, not AS a god or as the same "person" as god.

 

Might not be a biblical contradiction, but it sure is a contradiction between what the stories say and what their theology teaches.