The New Testament contains no genuine contradictions of consequence

I have participated in this debate and rarely find someone who actually understands the nature of "Contradictions of Consequence" and seeks out "contradictions" that are less than superficial. I am glad I don't have to explain why Matthew reports to angels, while Mark reports one. On to the explanation. A) My opponent indicates that Matthew is "strongly suggesting that one only uses the Lord's Prayer rather than asking for specific things. " However, this is not the case. Jesus is giving us an example of the proper way to pray and it is better to view it as a guideline for the TYPES of prayers that we need. Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name - Begin your prayer with acknowledging who God is and by praising himThy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven - Acknowledge that God's ways are bigger than your own and that you want him to accomplish his will if it is in opposition to your ownGive us this day our daily bread - Ask God to provide the things you needAnd forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us - Pray for forgiveness and confess your sins. Lead us not into temptation and deliver us from evil - protect us from the things that tempt us to sin and from the devil who would seek to attack usFor thine is the kingdom and the glory and the power forever, amen - Close with acknowledging again who he is and submitting to him. Other passages that indicate other ways to pray are either expansions of this teaching (If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it is an expansion on the types of things to ask in the "Daily Bread" portion of your prayer). Since Christ does not forbid using any prayers other than the so-called Lord's Prayer, and in fact we have evidence that there were other liturgical prayers being used without any sort of admonishment against them, it is clear that Christ did not mean to exclude any other types of prayers. We even see Christ himself praying in other ways, so it would be illogical to think he was commanding that we only use the Lord's Prayer. B) This is a much more difficult case and I'm glad my opponent raised this question. To understand this teaching we must understand a little about how Greek functions as a language. In Greek (and in all languages) we have what is called a "semantic field. " This is the range of concepts that a given word can describe. For example, in the English language we have the word "Love" which has a semantic field that covers "Strong affection, sexual attraction, familial relations, and friendship bonds. " This is often delineated by numbering various meanings of a given word in a dictionary. We see a similar phenomenon with the noun Ï€Î¯ÏƒÏ„Î¹Ï‚ (pistis) or the verbal form Ï€Î¹ÏƒÏ„ÎµÏï¿½Ï‰ (pisteuÅï¿½). According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the semantic field of this word includes1) used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul2) to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith3) mere acknowledgment of some fact or event: intellectual faith [A]We look earlier in the passage (James 2:19) and see that "Even the demons believe. " We are forced to ask, "What way is James using the word pisteuÅï¿½? " In this context we can use process of elimination to discredit 1 and 2. It is clear that demons do not have conviction and trust which impell them to follow Jesus (1). It is also clear that the demons do not trust in Jesus for salvation (2). That leaves us with only option 3. The demons acknowledge intellectually the fact that Jesus is Lord. THIS kind of pistis is not salvific. However, when we look Romans 3:28 (as well as Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:8-10, and others) we see that Paul is using the word in the sense of number 2. He is saying that a faith that trusts Jesus for salvation is salvific. In addition, we see that the Author uses it in the sense of number 1 in that the faith is imparted for the purpose of saving them, and then to do good works. If anything, James is adding clarification to the discussion in order to clarify what kind of pistis is salvific. He says that faith without works is dead. What he means is that "intellectual acknowledgement" that does not motivate one to do good works is not the kind of faith that saves. So rather than works being salvific, works serve to demonstrate the kind of faith that a person has. There is no contradiction here, in fact if you look further in the passage (2:24) that James indicates that Abraham was justified by works, however the "work" that he did was belief, which was credited to him as righteousness. The act of leaving Ur (Good Work) was not what saved him, rather it was the faith that moved him to leave Ur. C) Ah, the enigmatic blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. This is a question Christians have been asking for generations. I see how this appears to be a contradiction on the surface, but we must understand WHAT blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is to understand this passage. In this passage, Jesus is identifying something the Pharisees are doing as this sin. That is identifying the work of God as the work of Satan. Thus, Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the attribution of the work of God as the work of Satan. When we consider this it is clear why this is sometimes called the "unforgivable sin. " However, it is more accurate to call it the "unforgiven sin. " The reason that Jesus says these person "never have forgiveness" is that they are never able to do the confession indicated in1 John 1:9. If the very forgiveness of sins is the work of God, and one identifies that forgiveness is being called the work of Satan, how can one put trust in God. It is not a matter of God refusing to forgive this sin, it is a matter of the person never being able to confess. John writes "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. " Quite simply put, someone who attributes the work of God to Satan will never confess and therefore cannot participate in the "then" portion of this "If/Then" statement. The ESV Study Bible note on Luke 12:10 (Luke's account of this interaction) states it this way "But blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—that is, the persistent and unrepentant resistance against the work of the Holy Spirit and his message concerning Jesus (cf. Acts 7:51)—this, Jesus says, will not be forgiven. The person who persists in hardening his heart against God, against the work of the Holy Spirit, and against the provision of Christ as Savior, is outside the reach of God's provision for forgiveness and salvation. " [B] The provision the ESV Study Bible is identifying is the confession noted in 1 John 1:9, and since a person committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit are incapable of confessing, they cannot be forgiven. Not because God refuses, but because they will never seek the forgiveness. ConclusionMy opponent has not provided any insurmountable "contradictions" that cannot be explained logically when observing the context of the passage. I look forward to his rebuttals and new arguments. [A] . http://www.blueletterbible.org...[B] ESV Study Bible, Note on Luke 12:10