There are no contradictions in the Bible

To begin with, I must express my sincere disappointment and annoyance with my opponent as I have seen so far. I believe that I have raised some reasonable objections to the resurrection story. Yet, my opponent doesn't seem to have made even the slightest effort to even acknowledge the validity of some of points that I have raised. As of yet, he has treated my objections with a dismissive manner which, frankly speaking, is both tiresome to have to deal as well as rather insulting. I have made an effort to raise several important - as it seems - conflicting aspects of the resurrection story, and, hence, I do expect my opponent to give a somewhat decent and intellectually honest response, not succinct retorts that misses out on my line of argument. I believe that it is an improper debating conduct when my opponent dismissively tries to rebuke some of my arguments with succinct and inadequate responses, as if those points raised are somehow silly, not worthy of an adequate rebuttal, while, in fact, I do believe that I got to the core of many aspects surrounding the resurrection story most of the time. The dismissive fashion with which my opponent has treated my argument is a maneuver which I often see leftists deploy when their arguments doesn't hold water: they simply ignore your arguments or treat them as if they are now worthy of an sufficient explanation, hence giving short answers, as if to indicate that the matter raised is not worthy of a decent response. Furthermore, I do want to point out to my opponent that he doesn't need to copy my almost entire previous addresses in order to refute certain sections of my argument. It just occupies a lot text and prevents my opponent from expanding his own arguments. I am perfectly sure that those who are going to vote on this debate are going to read through whole of our debate, and, consequently, they wont miss out on anything important. For the third time, you won't acknowledge the validity of the contention that I raised. For the third time I need to explain, that the crucifixion story told in Matthew and Luke portray the same thing: Jesus crucifixion. All right? If you haven't read the accounts that I was talking about, then here you go. https://www.biblegateway.com... 23%3A26-43 https://www.biblegateway.com... Your response was "each Gospel speaks of the life of Jesus, but different events and retellings. Some events are omitted in some gospels." Ok, then how does this relate to my question? I asked you twice to explain how both these events can be reconciled since I explained that the portrayals are so diametrically opposed to each other. If some parts of this story are omitted or told in a different, as you suggest, then please, can you please demonstrate this instead of just positing it without offering any evidence whatsoever to account for that? "You ignored what I said about God taking manifestations." I didn't ignore it since it has no bearing on my question. My question was stated quite plainly: why does God need to come down TO SEE the tower if he were omniscient. If he were omniscient, then wouldn't he already know exactly how it would look like? Concerning the Matthew 28:2,5 chapter, I was reading from the NIV. Ok, I might have made a mistake to not cross-check with other bibles, I admit that. Still, someone had to witness it, right? If the women weren't around when the angel descended down, moved the stone and startled the guards, then how come it is portrayed so vividly, as if the women were there to actually account for all the details? It wouldn't make any sense to suggest that the women weren't there when the said events took place unless any cues suggestive of that is presented in Mark's gospel. I see no indication of that, hence the conclusion I must draw is that the story intended for the women to be present at the time, witnessing it all. I believe you have the burden of proof to prove otherwise. Even if the NKJ version differ on some aspect, you still have the burden of proof to show any scriptural indication as to the fact that they weren't there, since it would make more sense to infer, from the text, that they were present at the time. If you can't conclusive prove your assertion, then your argument is a mere conjecture. If it is a mere conjecture, then you have not given a satisfactory proof of your assertion. "Your not being specific with your verses, so I don't really understand your point." I was referencing to Mark 16:3: "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?". I repeat my question: why on earth would they ask each other something like that if there had already been an earthquake which had rolled away the stone just before they got there?". You suggested before - based on nothing other than mere conjectures - that the women were not present when the angel removed the stone from the tomb from the entrance. If that were the case, then why would they then need roll away the stone? It doesn't make any sense at all. "Then it's reconciled." What?! I can't express with words how exasperating these type of responses are. This is not even a response to what I was saying at all. Have you even read what I said? For the manner of this debate, I won't express any profanity or anything that would express my sincere discontent with how you have debated me so far, but I will at least reiterate my line of argument so as to, perhaps, make my arguments a bit clearer for you. I was merely suggesting, that if you posit that all four accounts of the resurrection are true, then perhaps one could make assume that there are certain aspects of the story that the different witnesses accentuate. Since you conceded, I ask, which aspects are there? Which aspects did the different gospel writers want to delineate and, hence, what role did the different witnesses play? "John wanted to focus on her perspective." For crying out loud, why can't you answer my questions? I asked very specific questions in the very section you purported to respond to. For the second time, why did she say that the body was STOLEN? "That sounds like a rhetorical question." It is not a rhetorical question! For god sake! It was a simple question that I directed to you, and the question still remains. "They were frightened but their joy was in the fact that Jesus resurrected from the dead." How do you know that? It plainly says that they didn't tell anyone about it in Mark 16:8. If Mark 16:8 doesn't mean what it says, then, by all means, can you enlighten us what it actually means to say? You have to use logic or scripture to prove your assertion, and obviously you can't cross-reference with the other gospels since we have not yet established that they are actually reconcilable with each other. Consequently, do you have any proof whatsoever that Mark 16:8 is wrong and that they actually told the disciples anything? If you were to find anything suggestive of that, then wouldn't that run contrary to what Mark 16:8 actually says and, thus, be a biblical contradiction? "Like I said, your not being specific with your verses, so I can't really respond accurately." I was referring to when he met his two followers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). When they returned to the disciples and told them about their experience with Jesus (Luke 24:36), he appeared before the disciples in Luke 24:37 -39, and it says: "They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." https://www.biblegateway.com... "I explained that it was both but at different times." You haven't explained anything. I have asked you two times now, how come there are two events that indicate a fist post-resurrection encounter with Jesus, both in "The great commission" told in the gospel of Matthew and the encounter with Jesus on Galilee as is told in Luke? You have, frankly speaking, been very exasperating so far. Now, I want you to read this carefully. I have not had time to respond to all your points raised and neither have you responded to all my objections. What we can agree upon is that I see a bunch of seemingly contradictory passages in the four gospels concerning the resurrection and crucifixion of Jesus that you, apparently, don't. Since you claim there is no contradiction, we ca both agree that you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that since you have framed the proposition so as to give you the burden of proof for this debate. Hence, I want you for the next one or two rounds to illustrate the connections between the different gospels that I have failed to see. Forget the disputes we are having about certain specific about the resurrection story. Forget about Adam and Eve, original sin and all those points that I raised in my introduction. Forget all that. I want you to chronologically and coherently explain the resurrection event. Since each gospel gives a partial description of what occurred, I want you to assemble all the pieces and explain how the resurrection took place, from the moment when the witnesses went to the tomb to when Jesus ascended to heaven. No details shall be omitted. All details in the four gospels most cohere. I want it all covered. If you do this satisfactory so that I won't be able to rebut your description, then I will concede that I was wrong and I will urge everyone to vote in your favor in this debate, despite your previous - in my opinion - flawed arguments and improper debating conduct. As of yet, no one that I know how has managed to pull this off. If you were to succeed with this, then I would gladly let you win this debate, despite what I think of the previous rounds. I am eagerly waiting for your response.