The New Testament Contains No Genuine Contradictions of Consequence

I am going to forgoe the normal nicities out of need for space. Please don't hold this against me. C1) I have two general responses to this contention. The first is that this is a contradiction that falls outside of the criteria of "consequence. " What does it matter if Jesus said they could take a staff or not? As defined (and agreed to) by the terms of the debate consequence means "A contradiction that poses actual threat to the meaning of Christian doctrine. " My opponent will need to show how this poses a threat to Christian doctrine. My second response is an explanation of the account. It is rather technical, so space may be prohibitive. It boils down to a study in comparitive lingustics. Greek was a langauge with a much greater range of word meanings and a fluid semantic field. The word in question here is translated as "take" but has a much greater range of meaning than a simple word. Let's first look at Matthew's usage of the word translated as "take" Most of this is taken from . http://www.christianthinktank.com...Matthew uses the word "kataomai" which generally means to "acquire. " This may or may not have financial implications (somtimes used as "buy" other times as "find"). We see that Matthew uses the word "agorazo" when he wants to denote acquiring by financial means. So in the context of Matthew's writing, the word kataomai means "to aquire. " This translation is preserved in many translations as "provide" or "aquire. " In the context of this passage and Matthew's greater writing corpus, he is saying "Do not aquire the following things. " He is stating that the urgency of the trip they are embarking on is so great that they are not to take time to find provisions, they are to go right now. Mark on the other hand uses the word "airo" which is a more general term for "pick up and take with you. " It is the same idea as "pick up and carry your luggage" and is used when Jesus tells people to "take up your matt and walk. " In the context of Mark's writing, Jesus is prohibiting them from carrying anything with them except a staff. This is different from Matthew who was saying that they should not take time to find a staff. Rather he is saying "do not carry with you anything other than a staff, your sandals, and a tunic. " Essentially, the things than an average Jewish man would have with them at any given time. Luke on the other hand uses "kataomai" in the financial aquisition sense. We see this when he says that Judas bought (ktaomai) a field. Also in Acts when he reports someone saying "I had to pay (ktaomai) a big price for my citizenship. " So Luke could NOT use the word ktaomai in this context as it would make no sense for him to prohibit the disciples from "buying money. " So he choses a more general term of "airo. " However, he is using it differently than Mark is. If Luke was trying to convey the same idea that Mark was, he uses the term "bastazo. " (See Luke 10:4)So, to summarize: Matthew's "ktaomai" = "Luke's "airo" while Mark's "airo" = Luke's "bastazo. " In addition, even if this answer is not sufficient to resolve the contradiction, my opponent has not shown how this is a "contradiction of consequence" as defined in the opening statement.1) Matthew reports Jesus telling his disciples not to aquire (ktaomai) the things he lists2) Luke records the same things, but uses a different word (since he would not use ktaomai as that has financial implications for him)3) Mark tells them not to take up and carry (airo) the things he lists, with the exceptions of a staff, sandals, and one tunic. There is no contradiction in the original langauge, and this is more a problem of the impressision of English. C2) This is a "contradiction" that bothered me for quite some time as well. So I want to acknowledge the diffiulty of the text. Much of the information I am about to use is drawn from . http://www.tektonics.org... There are a few possible explanations. I will begin with a question. Nearly all of us have tripped and fallen at some point. Have you ever heard of anyone who tripped onto a flat stretch of soil and not only died. .. but also split open so his innards burst forth? I haven't. .. so on the surface of the account seems unrealistic? The standard explanation goes like this:Judas, distraught over his decision, returned the money to the pharisees. He then went and hanged himself in a field and died. The pharisees then took the money, and since they could not put it back into the treasury, sought to purchase a field to bury foreigners. Since Judas died in a field, that field would already be defiled and would make a perfect purchase for a cemetary. So they took the 30 silver pieces, purchased it in Judas' name, and created a cemetary for foreigners known as "The Field of Blood" because it was purchased with blood money. Somewhere along the line Judas' body, which had been left hanging because it would make a person unclean to touch it, falls from the tree (either the rope or the branch breaks. .. or even the connecting tissues keeping Judas' head attached to his body) and splits open. This account contains no contradictions and similar harmnization happens in history all the time. Consider the account of two brothers being lynched in 1881. Boyd and Eddy in The Jesus Legend discuss a situation in which the two brothers are reported to have been hanged in two separate locations. Some people reported seeing them hang from a railroad crossing, others from a pine tree. The accounts appear contradictory at first glance, until photograhs surfaced of them in both locations. The conclusion is that they were hanged from the crossing first, then taken down and hanged again. (Page 424 in the referenced book). The next (and one I find more likely) is a textual explanation. The greek phrase translated as "falling headlong" is prenes genomenos, while the phrase for "becoming swollen" is presthes genomenos. This is a matter of replacing a Greek theta, with a Greek nu in a manuscript. If this mistake had been made in the textus receptus (the version that the KJV was translated from) the original would read "and becoming swoolen he burst open in teh middle and all how bowels gushed out. " This is certianly a plausible explanation. He hung from the tree for several days, then his flesh burst and his insides came forth. Another linguistic explanation is a misunderstanding of the word "apanchomai" which is translated "hanged himself. " Now, in the Bible this is word is only used in this passage. Hardly a good sample to draw a full range of meaning. However, when we look outsde the Bible to other Greek literature, we see this word used as "choking or squeezing one's self as with great emotion or grief. "Similar to when we say "I got all choked up. " If we see this as the meaning of the word we see that Matthew is not talkign about Judas' death. He is saying (although I'm using somewhat of a coloquialism) "Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, dearted, and got choked up with grief. " If this is the way Matthew is using this word, it does not contradict Luke in any way. C3) My opponent identifies two concerns. For the sake of space I shall be brief and will expand more if needed. First, the contrast between Christ's equality and statements that the Father is greater. This is what is known as functional subordination vs ontological subordination. Functional describes the way a person interacts, while ontological describes the way a person exists. If I am functionally subordinate to my boss, does that necessitate me being ontologically subordinate to him? Of course not. In response to the syllogism: In order for a syllogism to work, if a premise is false, the conclusion is false. In Christian doctrine, Christ is both a spirit and corporeal so P2 is not accurate as Jesus IS a spirit as wlll as a body. Since P2 is false, C is also false.