The New Testament contains no genuine contradictions of consequence

I appreciate the time it took to research these passages and compile them. On to the explanations. 1. The key to this is to understand what "all" is. For Jesus says that not a single portion of the law will pass away until "all" is accomplished. The standard reading of this is that "all" refers to the Law. Once the Law is fulfilled, it is no longer necessary and can be abolished. Christ was and is the fulfillment of the Law and therefore it is possible for the law to pass away, since all of it has been fulfilled in Christ. Now, to understand what Paul was saying to the church in Ephesus, we must read more than 3 words out of context. Paul was specifically speaking to the Church about the Law that divided Jews and Gentiles. The original OT Law was designed to distinguish Israel as the people of God so they could serve as a light to the nations (gentiles). Since Christ fulfilled this law and He is now the light to the nations, the regulations keeping the Jews separate from Gentiles were no longer necessary. 2. This is quite simple to explain, and has to do with translation. The Greek term used in Matthew 5 is "Racca" or "Raca" and is specifically a derogatory term. (See footnote 3 at esv. to/matt5) However, in Matthew 23:17 he uses the term "Moros" which is defined as "impious, godless" and also "without learning or erudition. (. http://www.blueletterbible.org...) This makes sense considering the context of Matthew 23:17 in which Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for their misunderstanding of the Law. He chastises them or not understanding the Law and for placing the value of the gold of the Temple more than the Holiness of the Temple, an impious act indeed. 3. The contexts of these two passages again is our guide. In Luke 11, Jesus is teaching about prayer, and the lesson is that if anyone asks God for something according to God's will, that prayer will be answered. However, in Luke 13 Jesus is telling a parable to explain an Eschatalogical (Last Things) truth. Luke 11 is in the context of a believer who prays while they are alive, Luke 13 is in the context of someone who has been given the chance to knock in this life, and now has passed into the next and is seeking to knock later. Other places are clear that we are given the opportunity to knock, as it were, before we die and then we face judgment. Once we die we are no longer permitted to knock. 4. Once again, my opponent is attempting to create contradictions by ignoring the context of the passage. In Romans, the passage saying that God wants to show mercy to all is in the context of Believing Israel. The mercy he is showing is to believers who were disobedient, and the point of the passage is to show that all are disobedient and that it isn't by obedience that we are saved. In Mark, the context is also clear… non-believers cannot be saved. However, there is no contradiction here because in Romans, Paul is referring to believers. 5. This is not a contradiction, and again simply falls to different ways to use language. The Greek word for "Temptation" has many meanings. Primarily, it means to test or prove something. However, there are various ways to do this. The first listed in Thayer's Lexicon is by trial. Paul uses this in Galatians when he states that his physical condition was a trial that proved the love of the Galatians toward Paul. We aren't given a lot of details about his condition, but it posed difficulty for the Galatians, and that proved they loved him. James uses the word in the way we more commonly think of it, as an enticement to sin. This is the second definition given by Thayer. (. http://www.blueletterbible.org...). It is clear that James is saying "God does not lead anyone into sin" and Jesus is saying "Do not lead us into difficult trials, rather deliver us from evil. " 6. The passage in Romans is a difficult one, I'll admit. However, we must again look at the context. In Acts, Peter is responding to religious Jews who are telling him not to preach the Gospel. The authorities in question were telling them to do something directly contrary to what God was instructing them. In this case, they were violating a greater authority, and Peter was explaining that to them. In Romans 13 however, the passage ends by saying "Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. " The standard reading of this in the Church has been that when a government instructs you to do something, you obey. The only exception to this would be if they instruct you to do something contrary to God's law or instructions. In this way you give "honor to whom honor is owed. " 7. This is a simple one, and since I am going to be running low on space I will make it simple. The doctrine of the Trinity exists specifically because of these kinds of verses. In John 10:30 Jesus is referring to his unity with the Father in nature. In Acts 2:22 they are referring to the distinction between the persons of the Trinity. (The classic formula for the Trinity is one God existing in three person with one divine nature) To answer your question, Yes Jesus is God and he is also a man in whom God worked. 8. Again, we must always be mindful of the context of a passage. Matthew 5:16 actually reads "In the same way, let your light shine. .. ) so we must look at the passage before and say "in the same way as what. " The passage states that no one lights a candle and then hides it. For that would be ridiculous, since the very purpose of a candle is to give light. In the same way, let your light shine, for that is what it was created to do. However, in Matthew 6:1 we see him guarding against something that was also happening (likely a further clarification because he previously told them to let their lights shine). In this passage we see that he is admonishing them to be careful about their motives in doing the good works (and doing them before people). The Pharisees were doing them so that THEY would be glorified (Matthew 6:2), so doing them before people for the purpose of self glorification was not acceptable. However, if you are doing it before people for the purpose of glorifying God (as seen in Matthew 5), then by all means. .. do it before men, since THAT is what the purpose of good works are. I look forward to what my opponent has next.