The New Testament contains no genuine contradictions of consequence

My schedule is quite busy and I want to apologize for the delay. On with the debate. 1. The OT Law is essentially a contract. In fact, the word "Testament" is roughly equivalent to "Covenant" or "Contract. " When one is said to have "fulfilled" the contract, that contract is often nullified or no longer binding. For example: A warranty that provides for 3 repairs. When the 3 repairs have been completed, the warranty is said to be "fulfilled" and is no longer applicable. Furthermore, if my opponent wishes to argue that we are not discussing interpretation. .. the word that Jesus used is "kataluo" which means "destroy" while the word that Paul uses is "katargeo" which means to "nulify. " There is no contradiction, Paul did not say that Jesus "kataluo"d the Law, rather that he "katargeo"d the Law. 2. My opponent established in point 1 that we are not discussing interpretation. Since his entire rebuttal is based on his interpretation that Jesus meant "Raca" to mean all insults. .. it is nul since we are not using interpretation. Jesus said do not say "Raca" and then said "Moros. " There is no contradiction, two different words. However, even if we were discussing interpretation, there is still no contradiction. The term Raca, according to Thayer's Lexicon (which my opponent recognizes as an authority), indicates that the term is a term of contempt. The term Moros however is a neutral word. The equivalent in our language would more accurately be "Idiot" verses "Ignorant. " In their definitions, idiot has a negative connotation built into it, while ignorant simply means one who lacks knowledge. 3. While my opponent has decided that we are not using interpretation, the original bounds of the debate did not include that restriction. It simply said that a genuine contradiction was a contradiction that was insurmountable and that two texts could not be true. There were no stipulations regarding if interpretation could be used to harmonize or reconcile texts. In Luke 11, the chapter starts with Jesus' disciples asking Jesus to "teach us to pray. " (11:1) The context was not regarding how to become saved. The parable Jesus teaches is a friend who is refusing to honor a request, and the response is to keep asking. Jesus is clearly teaching that if God does not answer a prayer the first time, that you should continue to pray for your request. Ask, Seek, and Knock are all metaphorical synonyms for requesting things. However, in Luke 13 we see a different teaching. The passage begins with someone asking about Salvation (13:22). Jesus responds by answering the question. Verse 25 says "When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door. " In this parable the "master" is obviously referring to the Father. One must ask what "has risen and shut the door" means. I believe that the logical answer would be to refer to the Eschaton, the end of all things. Since these people only knock on the door after it has been shut (After the eschaton has taken place) they are bared from entrance. The logical implication of this would be that those who knock on the door before it has been shut would be allowed to enter. My opponent's reference to James 4:3 is a non-sequitur. Although it is possible to interpret this passage regarding prayer, James is not explicit about what kind of asking is taking place, nor whom is being asked. 4. I would ask my opponent to explain to me exactly where "showing mercy" and "being saved" are defined as identical. Many school's of theological thought (Calvinism in particular) would argue that even the fact that all humans are sinful and deserve immediate death and punishment. The fact that we are not receiving immediate punishment is an act of mercy. Again, linguistics aid us. Romans 11:32 uses the Greek Verb "eleeo" while Mark 16:16 uses the Greek Verb "sozo. " They have different meanings. Sozo is to "to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction" with a more specific usage in scripture as "to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment. " While eleeo is much more general and means "to help one afflicted or seeking aid. " God can "help one afflicted" without "delivering them from the penalties of the Messianic judgement. " 5. I would like to thank my opponent for making my argument for me. If Jesus means "please don't let Satan get to us (and tempt us to sin)" and James means "God himself does not tempt us to sin" then there is no contradiction. Satan is the one doing the temptation, not God. 1 Peter 1:6-7 further bolsters this in that God allows temptation, but does not tempt us Himself. 6. Again, my opponent argues that we are not arguing interpretation, fine. Acts is a historical account, not a book teaching doctrine. When Peter disobey's human authority it is not meant as a didactic (teaching) passage, it is simply a description of what happened. No where does Acts say "Go and do likewise. " There is no contradiction. Romans teaches us to obey authorities, Acts shows us an example of a fallen human sinning in disobeying an authority. 7. The doctrine of the Trinity is an established Christian Doctrine. My opponent argues that the usage of the word "my" expresses the idea that Jesus must have been unified with God in nature, not in person. However, he cites no sources to prove this. He does so again when stating that the neuter form of "one" somehow argues further. He claims that Jesus must have been of equal power to God if he was of equal nature. This is an unproven assertion. However, he also does not prove that Jesus was not equal in power. Jesus did many miracles, including raising people from the dead, converting water into wine, and other miracles that point toward his divinity. His example from Mark 10:18 is simple to explain as well. Some questions are genuine questions, some questions are rhetorical and are meant to elicit a specific response. This is one such case. The young man calls Jesus good, Jesus responds with a rhetorical question "Why do you call me good? " The rhetorical answer is that "God alone is good. " While my opponent argues that Jesus denies being God, historical interpretation has argued that he is actually asserting his divinity. In the resurrection accounts, Jesus' disciple Thomas calls him God. Jesus does not correct him, rather he accepts his worship AS God. If he corrected the young man who called him good, why didn't he correct Thomas? The answer is that he was not correcting the young man, he was further clarifying why the young man recognized him as good. 8. My opponent is right, I did not provide justification for my assertion that the self-glorification is the issue in Matthew 6. I will do so now. Matthew 6:2 states ""Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. " The word "that" is the translation of the Greek "hopos" which Thayer states "denotes the purpose. " So Jesus is saying do not let good works be seen that are done for the purpose of being praised by others. Matthew 5:16 uses the same "hopos" when it says "that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. " The good works Jesus is talking about in 5:16 are good works with the purpose of being seen to glorify the Father. The good works Jesus is condemning and saying to hide have the purpose of bringing praise to the person doing the good works rather than to the Father.