The New Testament contains no genuine contradictions of consequence

However, I think it a little arrogant to end every point with "the point falls to me. " I'll leave that to the readers to decide. 1) My opponent is trying to impress you with his credentials as a law student. In debate, we call this an "appeal to false authority. " He has never proven he is a law student, nor has he proven that knowledge of how modern laws work gives any expertise in how ancient laws work. Even so, there are many contracts that we have in which the contract is no longer binding if one party fulfills their obligations. Loans are an example. If you pay of your loan, you have fulfilled your contract and are no longer bound by it. My opponent claims that I need to find an "escape clause" and tries to bully you into believing that it doesn't exist. However, it was not difficult to find. Jeremiah 31:31-33 ""Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah [. .. ] But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. " The author of Hebrews explains further when he says "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. " (8:13) And Jesus clearly claims to be the bringer of this New Covenant in his words during the last supper. "This cup is the New Covenant in my blood" (Matthew 26:28, cf 1 Corinthians 11:25) 2) The fact is that the two terms are different terms and have different meanings. Thayer says specifically that the term "raca" is a term of rebuke used in anger, which is the context that Jesus was condemning. You have the burden of proof to show conclusively that Jesus meant all terms that have negative connotation. You have not fulfilled this burden. The term moros may be used in moments of anger, but by definition it simply means that a person is ignorant or impious. The point most certainly does not fall to you as both linguistically this is not a contradiction (different words) and I have provided a reasonable interpretation that harmonizes the two concepts (a word of anger vs a word of fact. ) 3) I will not retreat my argument, as it is coherent as it is. Luke 11 is teaching us about prayer in this existence. That is clear. The context of Luke 13, interpreting the phrase "has shut the door" as a close of time is a legitimate conclusion. Furthermore, the opening of Luke 13 is about those who perished in the collapse of the Tower of Siloam, and he is urging his hearers to realize that at any time something could take their life, or "shut the door" on them, as it were. The point again, does not fall to you. You have miss characterized my sentence and attempted to throw a straw man out to be knocked down. My opponent claims I do not provide causal links, however he begs the question with James 4:2 which reads "You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. " My opponent is claiming that this passage states that it is specifically about "asking God stuff", however I do not see that explicitly stated in the passage. Is that a possible interpretation, sure. Is it the only, or even most logical, most certainly not. If verse 4:2 is not necessarily about prayer, vs 4:3 is also not necessarily about prayer. 4) My opponent's rebuttal only holds water if showing mercy and salvation are synonymous. However, the two are not. Is salvation an act of mercy? Yes. Is it the only act of mercy? Absolutely not. This is known as a fallacy of false association where all As are Bs (All times a person is saved is an act of mercy). This fallacy assumes that the converse is true, when it is not. (All As are Bs, but not all Bs are Cs. All Fords are Cars, but not all Cars are Fords. All acts of salvation are acts of mercy, but not all acts of mercy are acts of salvation). He saved us according to his mercy. He also provides water and food according to his mercy. However, providing water and food is not a soteriological salvation. 5) This is an issue of theological interpretation, not of the text itself. One might ask, if God allows the temptation. .. is he not responsible for it? While the answer of this question may be yes, it is still not God doing the tempting. In my opponent's example of the dam that breaks, consider this. If the dam breaks, does the dam flood the town? Does the dam drown people or wash away homes? No. The dam doesn't do these things, the river does. The dams job is to stop the river from doing those things, but if the dam fails, it is still the river that does these things. Now, if one argues that it is God's job to stop the devil from tempting us (I'm not arguing that it is, but for the sake of the example we will say that it is) if he fails (as the dam fails) it is still the devil tempting us (as it is still the river flooding the city). Jesus asking for God not to lead us into temptation is like asking the dam not to break. James saying that God does not tempt us, is like saying the dam doesn't flood the town. 6) My opponent does not understand the nature of contradiction. If one book teaches not to disobey authorities, and another teaches to disobey authorities. .. that is a contradiction. If one book teaches to disobey authorities, and another simply shows an example of someone doing so. .. it is not teaching something contradictory, it is simply showing a historical event. 7) My opponent also demonstrates a lack of knowledge of ancient languages. Often times languages do not follow clear rules with regards to gender. We don't always know why an author choses to go outside of the standard conventions, however we know that they do. In fact, later in the book of John, the author does something very similar in referring to a collective group which includes males and females as neuter. (11:52) When a group is composed of both genders, or when the gender is unknown, the author of John seems to find it acceptable to use a neuter gender. This is obviously the case with the Trinity which has no gender, and with God who (although masculine grammatically has no gender physically). 8) My opponent argues that I ignore Matthew 5:16 which says "let your light shine before others" and claims that it is not for the purpose of God-glorification. However, he does not tell you the second half of the verse. .. which says " so that they may see your good works and ogive glory to your Father who is in heaven. " I don't know how much more clear that can get. My opponent intentionally left out a portion of the verse that specifically says the opposite of what he is telling you. I'd like to give my opponent the benefit of the doubt. .. but I don't know which benefit of the doubt to give him. Either he didn't read the second half of the passage which says flatly that these good works should be seen to give glory to God, irresponsible. Possibly he read it and witheld it from the readers, it is quite damaging to his point. .. deceitful. Or perhaps he didn't understand the explicit words on the page. .. subpar intellect. I guess you can decide which one it is. The passage SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY says "Let your works be seen for the purpose of drawing people to glorify God. " Later it says not to do good works "For the purpose of glorifying yourself" like the hypocrites do. The teaching is about the purpose of letting your works be seen, not the specifics of actually letting them be seen. My opponent claims I will try to confuse you. .. I have spoken plainly and logically. I look forward to your votes. A reminder to Con, no new arguments in Round 4. Thank you for your participation, it has been lively and cordial and I applaud you for your conduct and effort.