The New Testament Contains No Genuine Contradictions of Consequence

My opponent has again postd challenging texts, and I applaud him for the time taken to post these questions.Contention 1) Again, this is broken into several sub-pointsC1.a) My opponent sees a contradiction in Christ exclaiming "My God, MyGod, why haev you forsaken me?" He clamis that this exclamation goes against the fact that Christ knew and gladly accepted his impending death.C1.b) My opponent identifies apparent contradictions in the narrative accounts of Christ's death.Refutations of Contention 1)C1.a) This is a profound mystery that many Christians have pondered for nearly two millenea. However, I do not believe that it is contrary to what the Gospels reveal about the relationship between Christ and the Father. Before I launch into a full refutation, I would like to point out that this is not a contradiction persay. No where has my opponent identified a text (nor does one exist) that says that Jesus would not suffer, be in pain, exclaim that pain, be forsaken by the Father, and cry out in anguish at that forsakenness. In fact I would suggest the opposite.There are two primary ways to explain this phenomena. In reality, I think it is probably a combination of the two. The first is that the Father turned away from Christ and removed His loving presence in exchange for his wrath. "In some sense Jesus had to be cut off from the favor and fellowship with the Father that had been his eternally." [B] God pouring out his wrath onto Jesus for the sake (in the place) of sinners is a staple of the majority of Attonemnt theories (Penal Substitution and Propitiary Satisfaction namely). It is possible that Jesus was experiencing the pain of this wrath and was genuinely distraut at being God forsaken. The second is that this exclaimation was a cry of victory affirming his status as God's Messiah. The exclaimation is a quote from Psalm 22:1. For those who do not know, Psal 22:1 is the most explicitly Messianic Psalm in the whole Psalter. It also bears striking parallels to the death of Jesus. One author notes "It reads like it was wrtten by someone standing near the cross" [A] Any Jew familliar with this Psalm would have thought of it immediately when they heard Jesus cry out the opening words of it... this was one last proclaimation that he was the promised Messiah, indeed it is possible that this proclaimation (although not recorded in Luke) is what prompted the so-called Good Thief to recognize Jesus and trust him for salvation (Luke 23:40-43).C1.b) My opponent identifies that the various accounts appear contradictory. However, when someone looks closely, they are not. It is quite easy to harmonize these accounts. For example both Matthew and Mark indicates that right before he died he cried out in a loud voice. Matthew and Mark don't indicate WHAT he cried out in this loud voice. However, Luke indicates that after he cried out in a loud voice he died. These three accounts line up perfectly. The only account that possibly gives pause is John's who states that he sai "It is finished." then bowed his head and gave up his spirit. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that other things were not said after he said "It is finished." Nor does Luke say that there was nothing said between Jesus exclaiming "Father into your hands I commit my spirit!" He only indicates that said that prior to his death. Consider the following analogy of the theoretical death of a father surrounded by his family.10:00am - The family arrives, minus the eldest son John10:40am - John arrives10:45am - The father sits up in bed and tells his family that he loves them all but that they should not be sad10:47am - the father pulls John close and said "Take care of them son, they're your responsibility now"10:48am - Overcome with emotion, John leaves the room to compose himself10:50am - the father cries out "I see Jesus, I'm going home"10:52am - the father diesNow, lets pretend that four individuals are telling the story. His wife, the doctor, his youngest daughter, and the eldest son JohnThe mother might say "We got there shortly before he died. And before he died he sat up in bed and told us that he loves us but not to be sad."While the doctor might say "The family arrived at around 10:00am. I was in the other room waiting for them to call me in until I heard him shout something so I rushed in. I pronounced him dead at 10:52am"The daughter may not remember all the details, so she speaks in vague terms. "We got there in the morning, and we were with him until he died. What I do remember is how even right before he died he was crying out to Jesus."While John only has vivid memories of his father charging him with the care of the family and says "I got there late, but I made it in time for him to pull me close. The last thing he said to me was 'Take care of them son, they're your responsibility now,' and then he died."We see from this example that different perspectives yield different stories. However, the stories do not contradict each other, nor are they false simply because they are not identical. If anything, the various accounts give us a fuller understanding of what actually happened.Contention 2)Con identifies potential contradictions in the timeline and account of the resurrection story.Refutations of Contention 2)My opponent makes several assumptions that are not explicit in the text. He identifies that in Matthew that the earthquake that rolled the stone aside happened while the women were present. However, this is not what the text says. It simply says the women went to see the tomb. There was an earthquake and the stone was rolled aside. While I can see how a reader might assume the women were present when this happened, however the text does not make this clear. When we look at the other texts which are explicit, they inform the ambiguous text rather than contradict it.My opponent also seeks to show contradiction between who the women told and when they told them. A brief point about neither" implying two women... the word neither here doesn't mean "neither women," it is saying that they fled in panic, and didn't say anything to anyone. It's a poor translation fom an older usage. The word in Greek is καὶ (kai) which simply means "and" so the appropriate modern translation would be "they fled from the toom, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." Now, the question of "they didn't say anything to anyone." We are forced to contend with what the author meant. Both Matthew and Mark say the fled with fear. This is another case of various perspectives yeilding different yet compatible accounts. In Mark, we see the women flee the tomb and tell no one. However, the story ends with them fleeing the tomb. In Matthew we see them flee the tomb, but the story continues past where Mark stops. Before they tell anyone, the meet Jesus and he tells them to go tell the disciples, and they do. This is similar to the exampel above where the eldest son John stops his story before the end because he left. Mark simply stops the story before they recieved instruction to spread the news. For the sake of space I shall approach the next two aspects of this quickly. The discrepancy in numbers is again a case of different ephasis and perspective. If there are three women, there are also two. If the author identifies two women, that doesn't mean there weren't three present it just means the others were not significant in the Author's mind.Due to space constraints, I will treat the remainder of contention 2 in round 3 as well as the mini-contradictions.Sources[A] Charles L. Quarles, [B] Michael J. Wilkins, [C] All quoted Scripture is from the ESV Bible, which can be found at http://www.esvbible.org...