The New Testament Contains No Genuine Contradictions of Consequence

Here is a brief summary of where the debate stands. C1) Staff or no staff? - Introduced in Round 1, Dropped by opponent C2) The death of Judas? -Introduced in Round 1, Still active C3) Is Jesus God? - Introduced in Round 1, Still Active C4) Number of Disciples - Introduced in Round 2 C5) When did Satan enter Judas? - Introduced in Round 2 C6) Where were the women? - Introduced in Round 2 Before I get into my rebuttals, I would like to address something. In round 2 my opponent writes: "Any contradiction in the Bible automatically proves the Bible false." I find this to be a blatantly unsupported assertion? Is there any other historical document in which this axiom would be applied? One can point at several contradictions in historical accounts of just about any event and find contradictions. For example, take the accounts of the JFK assassination. One gunman? Two? Lee Harvey Oswald? Unknown shooter? Died immediately? Died at hospital? Died on the way to the hospital? There are many contradictions, yet we still acknowledge the historical fact that JFK was assassinated. Furthermore, in the opening contention of this debate I stated that a contradiction must pose a significant threat to an essential Christian doctrine. I quote "A contradiction that poses actual threat to the meaning of Christian doctrine." As per the terms of this debate, my opponent accepted this condition when accepting the debate. "By accepting you agree to all the stipulations and rules that have been given above." Therefore, my opponent cannot simply assert this claim and MUST prove how any given contradiction fulfills this criteria. On with the debate RRRC2) I provided three possible explanations for how this contradiction can be resolved. One was the traditional account of Judas hanging himself, the rope breaking, his swollen and partially rotten corpse falling to the ground, and then splitting open. The next was a possible textual error in which the phrase "falling headlong" had mistakenly replaced "becoming swollen" (it is a matter of a single letter being switched in the original Greek). Thirdly, I noted that the word for "hanged himself" can be used as an idiom for debilitating grief (Similar to the phrase "I got all choked up"). Note that my opponent left the latter of the two possible options entirely unchallenged and only focused on option one. For the sake of space, I would like to address this briefly. my opponent has actually introduced another contention into this debate as the means of Judas' death and the purchasing of the field are two separate issues. I will answer the issue of "who bought the field" with a question: If I own stock, and have my stock broker make a trade, who purchases the stock? Is it me, or my stock broker? The obvious answer is that it is me. Even if I do not make the decision on what to purchase or when, I still make the purchase. Simply because my stock broker is doing so on my behalf, and was the one who physically made the purchase, does not mean that he is the purchaser. This issue is similar in the case of Judas. He did not physically make the purchase, but since the Pharisees made the purchase on his behalf using his money the field was purchased by him. My opponent then introduces a series of red herrings into the argument. No where does the Bible, nor I, claim that Judas fell of a cliff. In fact, in my argument I made the exact opposite argument. I found it strange that Judas could trip in a field, fall flat, and burst open. My opponent's argument regarding this as another issue can be ignored, since it is not present in either my argument nor in the Bible. My opponent also notes that Judas returned the money, but then questions how he could purchase a field with that money. This has been resolved with the "stock broker" analogy. Just because Judas did not make the purchase himself, does not mean that the land was not legally his. As far as "falling headlong." The original Greek is more literally translated as "became headlong" and likely refers to his final state. So he fell (from wherever he fell from) and in the end rested flat in a horizontal position. Again, my opponent introduces "rocks" that I, nor the Bible, never introduced. RRRC3) I would encourage my opponent to read more carefully. I did address this issue in the discussion of "Functional" vs "Ontological" statements. "My Father is greater than I" is a functional statement. It shows how their relationship functions. "I and my Father are one" is an ontological statement. It shows how they exist. Again I point out, if I say "My boss is my superior" I am not making a statement about how we exist (Stating that he is somehow a superior human being), I am stating that in our employment relationship, he is superior in a functional ay. RC4) The term "the twelve apostles" is used by Paul as a technical term to denote the original 12 Apostles, as opposed to the Apostles who would come before. For example, Paul himself was an Apostle, but not one of the 12. In addition, the name Peter and Thomas were common names in the 1st century, so he was indicating WHICH Peter and Thomas he was refering to by denoting them as "one of the 12," rather than any other Thomas or Peter. In addition, I would urge my opponent to show what significance this actually has to Christian doctrine. The issue with Judas again is resolved by pointing to the fact that in Paul, the 12 is a technical term that refers to the original Apostles and does not necessarily refer to the actual number of Apostles that were present at a given event. RC5) This is extremely simple to explain. Satan entered Judas and compelled him to go make a deal with the Pharisees. He then left Judas, and re-entered him after dinner to compel him to complete the deed. My opponent would either have to show that the Bible says that A) Satan only entered Judas once, or B) The Bible teaches that a demon cannot enter someone more than once. We actually see the opposite to be true. In Matthew 12 Jesus teaches of an evil spirit who leaves a person, finds no superior place to dwell, then seeks to return. This implies that A) A spirit can leave a person, and B) it can then return to that person. RC6) If you read the Synoptic Gospels carefully none of them denote which women were standing afar off. John however, does denote that there are specific women who are standing quite close to the cross (Along with John himself, who was present at the Cross). In order for this contradiction to stand my opponent will need to prove that the only possible reading of this text is that the two groups of women described are the same women. Is it not possible that some women stayed far away, while those closest to Jesus (His mother, his Aunt, and Mary Magdalene) drew nearer? He would also need to prove that the phrases "Afar off" and "Stood by" the cross are mutually exclusive. When I tell someone from Minnesota where I live I say "I live in Boston" however, this is not strictly accurate. I actually live in a town about 45 minutes north of Boston. So when I tell someone who lives in Peabody (a neighboring town) where I live I say "South Hamilton." Words like "afar" and "near" or "by" are relative terms. What if for John "by the cross" simply means they could see it, while Matthew, Mark, and Luke would only consider "by the cross" to be immediately next to it? My opponent's assertion that "nobody was allowed near" is not substantially asserted or proven. Furthermore, we are not debating if the historical accounts are plausible, possible, or happened. We are debating if the accounts contained in the New Testament are consistent with each other. If they are or are not consistent with history is irrelevant to the resolution of this debate. Thank you for your time in reading this debate.