The New Testament Contains No Genuine Contradictions of Consequence

Thanks to my opponent for his responses. I look forward to continued dialogue.Contradiction 1: From Which of David's Sons did Jesus descend?My opponent has committed an Appeal to Authority Fallacy. I respect DA Carson greatly, but I disagree with him, and so do other scholars as well as Church Tradition. The fact is this, unless my opponent can prove that my explanation is impossible (or highly improbable), I have resolved the contradiction.In regard to his assertion that Mary was a member of Levi (Aaron) rather than Judah (David), this is a hasty conclusion. If Elizabeth was Mary's maternal aunt, and Mary's father was descended from Judah (David) then Mary would be of Judah and not Levi. This is only one possible configuration that would result in Mary benig from Judah and Elizabeth being from Levi.I agree that Jews do not trasnsmit birthright in this manner, which is the purpose of the legal geneaology of Matthew. Luke seeks to establish the biological lineage of Jesus, while Mathew seeks to establish the legal geneaology of Jesus. Furthermore, Judaism observes something called "Matrilineal Descent" in establishing the Jewish identity of a child. That is to say that determining if Jesus was Jewish or not would be determined by his mother's lineage, so a maternal lineage is valuable and necessary.Contradiction 2: Was Jesus Born of a Virgin?My opponent asserts that "both father and mother are vital in determining the geneaology. However, in the immediately prior line he indicates that the maternal lineage was so insignificant that it wouldn't even be mentioned. My opponent cannot have it both ways.Furthermore, regardless of this, there is no contradiction in the Scriptures. Romans indicates that Jesus was descended from David, and Jesus' mother was also descended from David. No contradiction. Contradiction 3: What Year was Jesus Born?My opponent has dropped this contention.Contradiction 4/5: How many animals did Jesus Ride/The Disciples Bring BackThere are three issues here, I will deal with them separately.In the Greek the Genetive Plural for Masculine, Feminine, and Neuter are all identical in ending (Omega-Nu). It is therefore impossible to identify if the "them" refers to the "donkey and the colt" or if it refers to "their cloaks." However, context makes it more likely that "them" refers to the cloaks (He sat on their cloaks) rather than the two animals, as it is difficult to sit on two animals at once, not impossible, but difficult. Grammatically, either is possible.The next issue is that of agency. My opponent points out that in one part of the narrative the disciples find the animals, and in the other part Jesus does. This is a simple explanation. When the president gives a speech people say "the president's speech." When asked who wrote it, they often say "the president." Now, the president has a role, but he also had a team of speechwriters who did so. But to say that the president wrote it is not false. That is, if we say that the president wrote it or the speechwriters wrote it, both are true. One is a statement of direct writing, one is a statement of agency on behalf of the president. Since the president commissioned the speechwriters, it is done in his agency. This is no different. Jesus commissioned the disciples to find the donkey, they did so on his behalf and under his agency. To say that he found a donkey is no more or less true than to say that the disciples found a donkey.The third is the number of animals. Currently I have a keyring with several keys on it. One of those keys is the key to my dorm room. If I say "I took my keys out of my pocket" and then later say "I used my key to open the door" neither are incorrect or contradictory. Simply put, if I have keys, I also have a key. Analogously, if the disciples brought a donkey and a colt, they also brought a donkey.Thank you.