The new testament is without contradiction.

Historically speaking Quirinius would have been running military campaigns during the reign of Herod. This excuse my opponent gives is complete nonsense. There are a few options to explain this. The most telling explanation is the fact that the word for Governor (hegemon) is a rather ambiguous term when referring to Rome and can include Prefect, Procurator, as well as Caesar himself. It essentially just means leader. [1] For instance, Pontius Pilate was referred to as the Governor of Judea during Jesus’ crucifixion, and we understand this to mean he was the Prefect of Judea. Since Governor is such a broad term Quirinius was “Governor” on many occasions with various levels of office. Also, he was likely a ruler charged with overseeing the census. Also, we could look at the Lapis Tiburtinus, it said that a certain Roman military official, whose name is missing, was in office twice. One view is that this was Quirinius and that at one point he was co-ruler along with Quinctilius Varus. Since it is ambiguous it is hard to tell for sure. [2] I prefer the former explanation as it applies whether or not the latter one is true. It is not just Governor, but Governor of Syria, a position I have already shown that historians like Josephus clearly give us a distinct order in this time frame. Quirinius does not fit in until 6 CE. This is not in dispute among many historians. He clearly is going through Joseph t get to David, which is it. Contention stands.” Yes, as I explained that is because Joseph was Jesus’ LEGAL father. It was already know that Mary was also descended from David. If it was saying that he was Jesus’ biological father it would not have used the phrase “it was understood” which suggests that people knew Joseph as Jesus’ father when he wasn’t biologically.As for the Joseph vs Virgin birth contradiction, once you understand that these genealogies were put in to fulfill the Davadic prophecy of bloodline, it becomes a very big issue. They are claiming Jesus to be the blood of David through Joseph. This creates a huge problem as a Legal father is not blood. “That seems odd being you fulfill prophecy from prophets, but how exactly does one fulfill a law?” The in this case was essentially a prophecy. The sacrificial laws of the old Testament were foreshadowing to Christ. When they sacrificed an animal it represented Christ. When Jesus, the Lamb of God, was crucified he was the ultimate sacrifice, therefore there was no more need for the old laws.Again Mathew 5:17-20 says not until Heaven and Earth have come to pass shall one jot or tittle be removed from the law. The law referring to the Torah as Jesus was a Jew and this is what Jews referred to as the law. To make this clear he refers to the Pharisees, who were strict law abiding Jews. The Pharisees would never agree with his statement about Jesus fulfilling it with his sacrifice and not needing anymore, so why would Jesus reference them in this situation? Oh that is right because he thought the entire law needed to be kept, which is in contradiction to Paul who didn't think it was useful.Here we go with a syllogism right out of the biblical text;If both heaven and earth have not passed the least of the letters of the law standsEarth has not passedThe law stands. This clearly contradicts pauls writings that the law is no good. You can't make Matthew on its own say what Paul said, and it is a textual crime to try to use Paul to contextualize what the author of Matthew was saying, as there is no evidence to support Matthew would have wanted his Gospel in a book with Paul. “While Luke and John are in the set of things that say it is false that his last words were , Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Just because each account has him saying a different thing does not mean that they contradict. Jesus could have said all of that but each Gospel only recorded one of them. The mere fact that something is omitted does not prove it didn’t happen. Adding them all together would give you the full picture but the lack of a complete picture in one does not negate their validity. So just because the books have him saying 2 contradictory things as his last words doesn't mean they contradict, lol. If Luke is right, John is wrong, and so is Matthew. If my opponent is right that is a combination of all 3 then all three are wrong and we have a fourth contradictory story.