The New Testament contains no genuine contradictions of consequence

In this round, I only have rebuttal. So far in this debate I've listed 8 apparent contradictions within the New Testament. My opponent has accepted that every one of these is "of consequence" but has not accepted that they are "genuine. " This is what we will be arguing for the remainder of the debate. Note that I'm generally using Thayer for my Greek because that's what you seem to be using. 1. Did Jesus abolish the law? My opponent rightly regards Jesus as the fulfillment of the law, but that is not to say that all is accomplished. We're not using interpretation. We're using the actual scripture and finding contradictions in it. The bible says that Jesus taught that in fulfilling the law, he did not destroy the law, diminish its value, or even change the law. Look at Matthew 5:17 - "I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. " The meaning of the word "fulfill" (pleroo in Greek) is to "fill full" - that is, to complete. Jesus completed the law, but that does not mean he abolished the law. To say that completing the law invokes over-writing the law is contrary to both reason and scripture. I also claim that my opponent is the one taking the verse out of context. After all, the passage tells us when all is fulfilled. Unlike what my opponent assumes to be the truth (the resurrection of Jesus), he should look to the start of the passage (the passing of heaven and earth). According to me, heaven and earth are yet to pass, so the law is still valid according to Jesus. 2. Did Jesus go to hell? Basically the question is whether foolish (moros) is equivalent in essence to vain (Raca). My overall contention is that Jesus meant for the teaching to apply to all insults, and it is beyond question that if I was to call someone foolish (or stupid is perhaps the common term) I would be insulting that person. The reason for this belief is as follows. In Acts 23:4, Paul insults a high priest. However, he knows the folly of his decision. He apologies profusely to the priest, confesses his mistake and cites Eccl. 10:20 (sorry, I can never spell that book)! Now, Paul used neither of these insults (he called the priest a wall), yet insulting itself was considered by Paul to be wrong. Paul knew both the Old and New Testaments supported that viewpoint. Raca was a rare word by the way (only used once in the whole Bible), so the use of it by Jesus probably indicates that he meant not to preclude all other insults just by mentioning the one. 3. If you seek the Kingdom of heaven, can you enter it? I think my opponent is adopting too narrow a reading of Luke 13! There is no indication in the passage about how long those left out have been knocking at the door - perhaps they started knocking long before the last days, and I argue that this is the correct interpretation of the context. They will continue to seek even until the end, but they will never find. My reasons are these. In James 4:3, those with ulterior motives are barred from receiving even though they ask. There are several like passages which place restrictions on one's ability to receive. Do people stop asking if they don't receive something? Often, the answer is no. Because God is essentially spiritual in nature, people may even think they have received when they have not. Really they are still waiting and always will. However, Jesus makes an unqualified promise in Luke 11. Luke 13 merely proves that Jesus recognised some qualification on his promise. Many who attempt to take up the promise he said two chapters before will not enter the Kingdom. All who take up the promise will enter the Kingdom. 4. Can non-believers be saved? The question here is whether Paul was speaking only of believers in Romans, or whether he is speaking of everyone. This is fundamentally what you dispute. Again, let us look at the passage. Paul uses the word "all". There is no language where all is synonymous with believers. There is nothing in the context to suggest this other than the fact that he was writing to believers. But Paul did not write "all of you," as would otherwise be required, but he wrote "all. " Between these two passages there remains a genuine contradiction. 5. Does God tempt? My opponent's claim is that God's pirasmos ("temptation") in the Lord's prayer is a trial, by an alternate Greek definition. Why, then, is the same word used in Ps. 19:13? Here is meaning is abundantly clear - please don't let Satan get to us, God! Any other definition would make no sense in context. So clearly God does lead people to temptation. Jesus knew the psalms and is clearly reinforcing their message. This reading is therefore far more valid and does not contradict the Greek. Therefore James is contradicted. Other New Testament verses support this reading. 1 Peter 1:6-7 makes it clear that God allows temptation as a means to test faith. Again, God leading people to temptation (why would Satan have an interest in testing faith when he could be building that big army foretold in the book of Revelation? ) There are a few other verses too, but you get the picture. 6. Need ruling authorities be obeyed? We're not discussing contradictions in Church doctrine, we're arguing contradictions in the New Testament. God is not a schizophrenic, and he does not institute laws contrary to his own. This is made very clear in the Bible. By giving ruling authorities delegated authority, God therefore justifies their every decision. Giving "honor" to God thus becomes giving "honor" to the state according to the Romans passage. In Romans their decisions are not decisions of men, but of God. Why does Paul, then, have a license to preach the opposite? 7. Is Jesus God, or a man in whom God worked? My opponent's analysis basically amounted to an explanation of the trinity. What my opponent overlooks is that John uses the word "my. " John hereby expresses the idea that Jesus must have been unified with God in nature, not in person. This is further reinforced by the use of the neuter form of "one," as opposed to the masculine which would otherwise have been required. If Jesus was of equal nature to God, he must have been equal also in power, as John Gill argues in his book, "Exposition of the Entire Bible. " Thus you ignore the fact that Jesus was not actually unified with God when he claimed to be one with him. Note also that hEN ("one") is translated as "To be united most closely (in will, spirit)," not "To be united. " Jesus specifically denies being one with God in Mark 10:18, where he denies being "good" because that would make him "God" when he is not. 8. Should we show our "light" or keep it hidden? My opponent claims a possible interpretation of these passages is to do good works but guard against showing off. The brilliant thing about Jesus' metaphor is that fires go out without oxygen, so a candle under a bowl stops shining. If you do not "uncover" your good works, you stop doing them. I think this is a more complete understanding of the metaphor than simply to take the obvious approach of focusing on the light, especially since the focus of the metaphor is on not the light but the candle. Jesus makes it clear in 5:16 that if your good works are not seen, you will not do good works. Except that you should beware of being seen doing good works, so one would be advised not to do good works. My opponent claims that this only applies only to, well, self-glorification - first, this was never biblically justified by him. Second, even if true (which I do not admit), then shouldn't that same definition rightly apply to the word "seen" in the other passage as well? I eagerly await my opponent's reply.