The New Testament Contains No Genuine Contradictions of Consequence

I am honored that you managed to deflect both of my contentions. In a sense, I wanted to see how you would respond to my own argument.But first:New contentions:1. One of the more harder things to explain was the exact words that Jesus spoke before his death (his final words):According to Matthew: "About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[a] lema sabachthani?" 27: 46This is interesting since what Jesus says is roughly translated as "My God, my god, why have you forsaken me?" I do not know why the Son of God would say such a thing, since: he was, in the name of the Lord,a practicer and a man who not walked upon water, gave a coin in a fish, and especially knew and gladly accepted his death. What could have convinced Jeuss to consider this? (The Bible does not give an explanation of this, I believe). The mystery is only compounded by the differring records of what he said. In Luke 23: 46, Jesus cried: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit."(The gospel of Luke goes on to tell that: and having said this, he gave up the ghost (or, in one translation, he breathed his last. That is to say he died after that...) In John 19:30, Jesus tasted the vinegar and said "It is finished", and died.Argument against traditional theories offered:1. The first offer is puzzling. The Gospels already hint to us that:The First Prediction – Mark 8:31“He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed,and rise after three days.”The Second Prediction – Mark 9:31“He was teaching his disciples and telling them, “The Son of Man is to be handed over to men and they will kill him, and three days after his death, he will rise.”The Third Prediction – Mark 10:33-34“Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and hand him over to the Gentiles who will mock him, spit upon him, scourge him, and put him to death, but after three days he will rise.”None of this are truly necessary, but they display the fact that the death of the Son of Man was forseen. Jesus however does display some knowledge of his own death when he says, "whoever wishes to be great among you will be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you will be the slave of all. For the Son of Man did not come tobe served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many. (give his life=death...) (Many have advocated that these are merely the addition of church interprations into the gospels. For the sake of an argument, I would not consider this since I will place trust into the Bible as my sole source of authority.If the Son of Man appeared to know his own death, and that, according to Mark, seemed predestined (which was already given in his passion predictions), why would he feel that he has been forsaken by God? It goes against the close relationship between the Son of Man and god who, as Romans puts it (I am quoting my last argument)"concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" was the son of god himself.,,,Contention II: Christ's Ascension Matthew makes the whole scene very dramatic (28:1-9). Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James went to the tomb, which was closed. At that time there was a strong earthquake. An angle of the Lord came from the sky, his face like lightening and his robe as white as snow, moved the stone, sat on it, and spoke to the women. He showed them the place where Jesus’ body was and said that he had risen, and that they were to inform the disciples quickly. The fact that they also met Jesus on the way is no longer connected to the visit to the tomb. Mark (16:1-8) says that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices to anoint Jesus. On the way they were wondering how they would move the stone from the tomb, when they saw that it was already opened and that a young man in a long white garment sat inside. He told them not to be afraid, for Jesus, whom they sought, had risen from the dead. They were to tell the disciples. But the women fled in panic; "neither said they anything to any man, for they were afraid." "Neither" implies two women, but Mark stated the names of three women! Luke (24:1-6) only mentions "women" (not mentioned by name), who went to the open tomb and found it empty. While they stood there sadly, two men in "shining garments" said to them: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen." John (20:1-2) describes things differently. According to him, only Mary Magdalene went to the grave early on the first day of the week and found the stone already removed. In a panic, she ran to Simon Peter and the other apostles, telling them that "they" had taken Jesus away to an unknown place. It seems that the story of Jesus' ascension is in conflict. I hope CON will, again--as I expect, to do a good job in explaining the differences. In Mattthew, it is an angel who alerts of Jesus' resurrection, while in Mark a man does so (it is not known if he was a holy being or not--therefore I suggest that both CON and I consider him as a man instead), whereas in Luke there are two men, and in John Mary Magdalene, who finds "the stone already removed", and Jesus gone. It seems that the stories here do not go together. (I hope that the summaries of the ascensions are accurate.)Mini contradictions that I would like to point out:1. In John 10:30, Jesus said, "I and my father are one." In John 14:28, Jesus said, "I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." From a modern viewpoint, in John 10:30, Jesus is equating himself with god. But later, in the same passage of the Gospel, he says that "for my Father is greater than I". How could, logically speaking, he be equal and still inferior to his Father? (This is, probably, a common complaint against the doctrine of Trinity). Perhaps, he was speaking out of reverence for the Father, but then what did he mean when he said, "I and my father are one." then...Possible counter-arguments:1. Imagine this as a logical sequence:Whatever is equal to another is the same.Whatever is greater than another is not the same (as the other one).Therefore, one that is equal to the other cannot be greater than the other.2. The reverenc of Jesus who, to the Pharisees, quotes the scriptures and once said, "God is not the God of the Dead, but of the living." This is more convincing, but this would discredit the earlier statement. In John 10: 30, Jesus says he is "one" or equal to "his father"--implicitly god. If one were to respect another, and regard him as greater, how would he consider him equal to him then? (Ex. a boy has a teacher whom he adores as a superior. Yet, would the boy consider himself equal to the teacher whom he regards as superior?) The two statements are rather incompatible. I am interested in how you would answer this. Second Mini-contradiction:2. Jairus' daughter Mark 5:22-23 And, behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name...And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death... Luke 8:41-42 And, behold, there came a man named Jairus...and he fell down at Jesus' feet, and besought him that he would come into his house: For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying... This is interesting. "The point of death" refers to the daughter being close to death, almost dead. However in Luke, it says "she lay a dying". In Luke, it is unclear whether the girl is slowly withering or at what point she is close to death. Is there a difference between "dying" or "near death"? I say, in a way, yes.I will draw the image of: a man who is running on the road vs. a man who is near the end of the road (and is still running) Are these two images compatible? I hope that CON would answer this adequately. (I will also evaluate CON's argument in the next round.)