The King James Bible is without contradiction.

OK... So apparently when you actually have an answer to the supposed contradictions it isn't even read and dismissed as a "weak" argument, even though it makes complete sense. Complaining and making excuses about a debate that you yourself accepted and are guaranteed more than 3 days to get your stuff together per argument is what is weak. Then I don't know if my opponent is confusing debates or what but we never even discussed the passover or Pharisees and Sadducees either for that matter. So there's no reason or point to responding to something that I never even said. "Can you supply a Jewish source saying that the Pharisees and Sadducees celebrated the Passover on different days?" Also, I should mention that putting up a "source" to some random irrelevant argument that was made up for some strange reason should not help my opponent's situation in any way, if anything... anyways... I'm not too sure why it is assumed that just because 1 Gospel doesn't mention a certain detail or event that somehow means it's a contradiction... It doesn't follow from my logic. On the 1 hand if the stories were too similar and coincided with every single detail we wouldn't really have independent testimony and then they'd be accused of collusion. However, to coincide but not be exactly the same isn't good enough either. So it doesn't matter what is written or how for some people because they will find some excuse to say it's no good regardless of the circumstances. So again this first one is easy. John 19:17 doesn't go into very much detail at all. It just says that Jesus carried the cross and doesn't say much at all about that part of the passion while other Gospels have included the detail of Simon helping carry it part of the way. Both are true though as both did indeed carry it at least part of the way but it doesn't in any way contradict each other where only 1 can be true by any means. Also, it is important for the reader to note that we are talking about documents that existed way before the printing press or books as we know them. We are talking about scrolls which are limited to a certain amount of content, so essentially having the 4 different Gospels is the only reason we know as much of the story as we do. Did both of the thieves crucified with Jesus taunt him? Yes. This is affirmed by both Matthew and Mark. I don't know if taunt is the word for it or not but it was some kind of negative attitude towards Jesus. Crucifixion is a very long process. It's not like hanging somebody or a firing squad. You're talking about several hours if not days to actually die. That's also why the Romans were known to "finish the job" at some point. Either by stabbing with a lance or breaking bones and other ghastly methods. It is easy to imagine a couple of criminals being executed and being bitter, saying more than they probably should. Thanks to Luke 23: 39-41 we know an additional little piece of the story. Now one of the hanged malefactors blasphemed Him, saying, "Are not you Christ? Save yourself and us!" Yet answering, the other one, rebuking him, averred, "Yet you are not fearing God, seeing that you are in the same judgment! And we, indeed, justly, for we are getting back the deserts of what we commit, yet this One commits nothing amiss." We don't know for sure what caused the 1 criminal to realize something was different about Jesus. Jesus made statements like, "Forgive them for they know not what they do." Which is a very humble and forgiving thing to say. It doesn't go into every single little detail and say every person that walked by or complete conversations. Why would it? Also, if you reread it in Luke, it could be argued that they have both seemed to notice something and the 1 criminal could be saying like, "Hey, if you really are God then save all of us from this because I don't wanna die." kinda thing. What we do know for sure is that 1 of the criminals is fearing of God enough to make that remark and is clearly starting to grasp his oncoming fate and choosing more wisely how to behave and think before it is time to meet Him in judgement. We don't know what the criminal saw, heard, thought, or conversated to come to his conclusion. Whatever it was though I bet he's glad it happened right about now... Sometimes we don't really even think about it much as Christians because it doesn't really matter that much. When it comes to things that are of little importance and don't have any bearing on any belief or doctrine it is put on the back burner for things that do affect salvation and doctrine. At the end of the day we're talking about 2 criminals that are being executed who never would have even been mentioned if it didn't happen to be when Jesus was executed. So it is no surprise that the whole scroll wasn't used up just to make this little piece of it complete enough to be able to reenact their whole conversation and experience for hours on the crosses. I'm just grateful for the little details we do get here and there. More than wanting to win this debate I just hope some people out there can see that it isn't good to assume and jump to conclusions. There are sites out there that will put 2 verses there for you out of context and call it a contradiction. It really does look like one if you don't take the time to see what the context is all about, and thus the actual message. Let's first see what is what and if it is true or not, then make our conclusions. God bless.