Paul, Peter and John are in clear contradiction with each others regarding the disbelieving husbands to believing wives!
In this article, I will address 1 Peter 3:1-6, 1 Corinthians 7:10-15, then compare it with 1 Corinthians 7:16, and John 3:15-16.
Also, please visit my rebuttal: My response to Sam Shamoun's rebuttal to my article "Paul, Peter and John are in clear contradiction with each others regarding the disbelieving husbands to believing wives!".
Let us first look at what Peter said:
1 Peter 3
1. Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so
that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without
words by the behavior of their wives,
2. when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.
3. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the
wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.
4. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle
and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.
5. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to
make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands,
6. like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters
if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
This passage of Peter directly contradicts Paul's. While Peter is asking women to be positive with their disbelieving husbands so that their husbands MIGHT be persuaded to embrace Christianity through their wives positive actions " they may be won over without words.....when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.", Paul said something totally different:
1 Corinthians 7:10-15:
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the
Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.
And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a
believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with
her, she must not divorce him.
14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and
the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband.
Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not
bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
Quick Note: Notice how the NIV Bible translators put (I, not the Lord) in parenthesis. They are suggesting that Paul in verses 12 through 15 was speaking only his own personal words and wasn't inspired by GOD Almighty, even thought HE NEVER DECLARED IT IN THESE VERSES. This is only their interpretation and addition. In any how, even if they were right, and Paul wasn't speaking GOD Almighty's Words, then this still would contradict Paul's own words in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," Obviously, not all the Bible is God-breathed because Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 would've contradicted that, as he also clearly contradicted it in 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 when he said that he is not always inspired by GOD Almighty, because both sets of verses are now PERMANENTLY PRESERVED in the Bible, which obviously doesn't make all of the Bible "God-breathed". Maybe 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 is what gave the NIV Bible translators the liberty to consider 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 as Paul's own words (even though he never said so) and not GOD's. This obviously proves that the Bible is so cheap to them that they would give themselves the liberty to add and take off from it as they please without fearing anything.
Anyway, is Paul suggesting here that a disbelieving man or woman would still be purified/cleansed and win Paradise just because they are married to a believer? I don't quite understand his logic here! How can a believing woman raise her children, especially in a male-dominated society (where a woman follows everything her husband says and does) back then, to be polytheist trinitarian pagans who believe in 3 gods, while the disbelieving husband might interfere heavily with that? Would the disbelieving husband and the disbelieving children still be saved even if they don't embrace the polytheist trinity paganism just because the wife/mother is a believer? Is this what Paul meant by "sanctified"?
Please visit: Paul nullified and contradicted the point of Baptism.
Also, notice "but as it is, they are holy" in 1 Corinthians 7:14 above. It really doesn't just mean that the disbelieving children would be considered "holy", but also the disbelieving spouse (male or female).
What does Paul here mean by "holy"??!! If the disbelieving spouse would still not be saved in the End, then what is the point from considering them "holy"??!!
How does all of this fit with Paul's very next verse in 1 Corinthians 7:16:
"How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? (From the NIV Bible, 1 Corinthians 7:16)"
So if the wife/husband can never save their spouse unless GOD Almighty Wills, then again, what is the point from calling the disbelieving spouses and the disbelieving children as "holy"?!
It is clear that Paul's "holy" title to disbelieving spouses and children proved to be irrelevant and absolutely pointless! Hence, this makes the Bible imperfect in it's contents and literature, since it contains utter nonsense and foolish opinions in it. Hence, this makes the Bible not the 100% True Holy Words of GOD Almighty.
Why should GOD Almighty, if He truly inspired Paul's nonsense, call disbelievers as
"holy" and still roast them in Hell? Wouldn't that make the Perfect GOD
Almighty inconsistent and a hypocrite?
Where is the Divine Perfection in this?!
Again, please visit: Paul nullified and contradicted the point of Baptism.
As we clearly see above, while Peter recommended for the wives to be very positive with their disbelieving husbands so that these husbands might be "won over" (meaning embrace the religion) through their wives' actions, Paul said that the disbelieving husbands would be "sanctified" through their believing wives. Not only the disbelieving husbands, but also their children even if these children became disbelievers.
Now let us look at what John said:
John 3
15. that everyone who believes in him may have eternal
life.
16. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever
believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Again, Paul clearly contradicted John 3:16 "that whoever believes in him shall not perish". How can a disbelieving husband not perish even if his wife was a believer?
No matter how you interpret 1 Peter 3:1-6, whether it meant to say that the disbelieving husbands are automatically purified through their believing wives, or it meant to say that the disbelieving husbands might be persuaded to embrace the pagan polytheist religion, 1 Peter 3:16 still would be in clear contradiction with Paul or John in either case!
In any rate for all of this, we see one thing that crystal clear:
The Bible is full of contradictions! It is certainly not perfect: Not in it's history (See the historical evidence of how most of the books and gospels were written by mysterious people), nor in its contents and literature. It is clear that it is made up of man's alterations and innovations and it is not and can not be the Inspired True Word of GOD Almighty.
Paul nullified and contradicted the point of Baptism.
How do the Bible and the Noble Quran view women?
Women in Islam vs. Christianity.
Contradictions and History of Corruption in the Bible.
Questions about Jesus that trinitarian Christians don't have logical answers for.
What parts of the Bible do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth? and Why?
"Allah" was GOD Almighty's original Name in the Bible according to the Hebrew and Aramaic sources.
Scientific Miracles in Islam and the Noble Quran.
Most of the Bible's books and gospels were written by mysterious people!
Jesus mentioned Muhammad by the name in the Bible.
Did Isaiah 53 really prophesies about the crucifixion of Jesus? It supports Islam's claims about Jesus peace be upon him never died on the cross. I also addressed John 19:36-37 from the Bible and proved that Jesus never got crucified, since GOD Almighty promised that he will protect Jesus' body and not let even a single bone be broken. My question to all Christians is: How in the world is it possible for the feet to get nailed on the cross without any penetration to the bones by the nails, hence breaking part of the feet's bones?! I also added refutations to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Psalm 34:20, which supposedly prove the Christians' belief about Jesus crucifixion. I proved that this dogma has no truth what so ever and exposed the wrong Trinitarian English translation of Zechariah 12:10.