The New Testament contains no genuine contradictions of consequence

This round will be a few short rebuttals, essentially serving more as a summary of my argument. First, I will admit, I used interpretation to understand the texts. All reading is interpretation of words, after all. What makes an interpretation valid is the use of scripture to back it up. All of my interpretations had scriptural references. The same cannot be said for all of my opponent's interpretations. Second, it would be helpful if my opponent wouldn't change his arguments all the time. I will respond to them anyway. 1. Did Jesus abolish the law? Take it from a law student. Just because an event happens to fulfil a particular clause does not necessarily void a contract as a whole. For your contract argument to work, you need to prove the old testament contains an escape clause for when the savior comes. Having read the old testament, I have never come across such a clause. Even if you do find something, I expect it will be too little, too late. The point falls to me. 2. Did Jesus go to hell? See my point about interpretation above. As to the idea of negative connotations of words, that is based entirely on the context or contingency. Calling a scholar ignorant as a matter of rebuke certainly has negative connotations, something which you do not deny. Try saying that to a university professor and see if they're indifferent. I'll bet they won't be. For this argument to work, you must prove moros never has a negative connotation. This is impossible, so the point falls to me. 3. If you seek the Kingdom of heaven, can you enter it? See my point about interpretation above. My opponent's case is: Jesus (Luke 11) teaches us to pray not for salvation, for Luke 13 is about the end times. That is what he said . .. go back and read it again if you don't believe me! He himself provides no evidence to back up this view, except to justify his "end times" statement. He doesn't even provide the causal link! How can I possibly respond to such an irrational argument, other than to point out that its not even an argument? Then he calls James 4:3 a non-sequiter. Obviously he hasn't read James 4:2, where it is stated the passage is specifically about asking God stuff (commonly called "prayer"). The point falls to me! 4. Can non-believers be saved? OK, so here my opponent simply argues salvation is not an act of mercy. Read Titus 3:5 - "he saved us . .. according to his own mercy". That one passage renders all 8 lines of your analysis void! Point falls to me. 5. Does God tempt? My argument here is that by allowing temptation, as you admit God does, and leading people to it, as the Lord's Prayer says, God is in fact the cause of temptation. It is like when a dam fails after heavy flooding - it is the dam, the stopgate, that fails. The river doesn't fail, for it behaves like rivers do. In the same way, when Satan tempts and God gives you the cold shoulder, it is God permitting temptation, God bringing temptation, and in the context of the James passage (not to blame God for temptation) God who is ultimately to blame for the temptation. Thus God tempts. Point falls to me. 6. Need ruling authorities be obeyed? If it's in the Bible, it's contradictable. Those are the conditions. Just because there is no imperative does not void a particular book from being contradictable. The point falls to me (again! ) 7. Is Jesus God, or a man in whom God worked? I will not need to cite sources! My case is just that awesome! If I say - that is "my" cup, I am referencing an external object. Same with "my" TV. Or even "my" mind - it isn't everything that makes up me. The neuter form of one backs this up further because if self-referential, he should have used the masculine form of "one" which would be appropriate for either "his" self or God (a masculine word). All you demonstrate is a lack of understanding of Greek and an over-reliance on your textbook. Equal power meaning equal nature is not an unproven assertion, and I even gave a source for this, from one of the most comprehensive and respected bible commentaries in history! Next my opponent discredits my Markian analysis because it is irreconcilable with historical views. Not good enough. Use only bibles as evidence! Finally, the Thomas thing is a red herring - lack of denial never means acceptance of guilt. Never - there are many things I have not denied in this debate, for example, but that does not mean I accept them. Yet again the point falls to me. 8. Should we show our "light" or keep it hidden? OK, so here we have a my-interpretation-versus-yours type showdown. My opponent tells us Jesus says not to do good works to get seen by others, but by God alone. The problem is that this interpretation completely ignores Matthew 5:16, especially where it says "let your light shine before others," not with the intention of God-glorification, but spreading good works. So really my opponent has Biblically explained one verse and ignored the contradiction entirely. So guess what . .. this point falls to me too! I his last round, my opponent will bring up all manner of assertions and try to confuse you with his theological training and knowlege of Greek. Don't be afraid. If you actually examine the evidence, I think you'll find there is a very clear conclusion to this debate. Even if there is only one contradiction in the New Testament, you should give this debate to me. That's all I need to prove. I have proven it beyond all doubt in eight ways. Please, please, please .