The New Testament Contains No Genuine Contradictions of Consequence

Not the Word of God My opponent has not shown where in the Bible God promises to preserve his word in this way. Nor has he shown that minor contradictions in the Bible somehow undermine the overall message of the Bible. What if the "word of God" is simply the message of salvation? This message is not undermined in any way by these minor contradictions. In fact, many Christian theological perspectives do not require the Bible to be free of error. The two theories (not mutually exclusive, but not mutually inclusive either) are infallibility (the Bible never fails to accomplish what it intends to accomplish) and inerrancy (the Bible is free of errors) are generally held by more conservative groups, while even more liberal groups will hold to infallibility. In short, unless the contradiction in a given text causes the text to fail to do what its intention was, it does not violate infallibility. Since none of these contradictions do that, they do not meet the criteria my opponent must to prove a contradiction of consequence. Further Rebuttals It is unfortunate that my opponent does not read carefully. As per the terms of the debate if my opponent posts any arguments or rebuttals in round four, they forfeit the debate. This is clearly outlined in the opening argument and is a stipulation that my opponent agreed to. Conclusions My opponent has presented 6 apparent contradictions (In reality, 7 as the discrepancy between how Judas died and the discrepancy of who bought the field is two discrepancies that have been conflated into one in my opponent's arguments. Argument 1) My opponent sought to show a contradiction in the account of Jesus sending out the twelve disciples by pointing out that in Mark they are permitted to take a staff, while in Luke in Matthew there is an apparent prohibition. I have resolved this by examining the linguistic context of the passages, and my opponent conceded the point. Argument 2) My opponent introduced the various accounts of the death of Judas Iscariot. I proposed three possible explanations, only one of which my opponent responded to. I was able to successfully rebut my opponent, as he was not able to show that my explanation is invalid or illogical. Argument 3) My opponent sought to build a contradiction between the Functional statements (My Father is greater than I) and the Ontological statements (My Father and I are one). I was able to resolve this by pointing out that functional statements and ontological statements are different and refer to different aspects of reality. My opponent also sought to show by means of Syllogism that Jesus is not Spirit, and since God is Spirit that Jesus cannot be God. I dismantled this syllogism by showing that in order for my opponent to prove that this syllogism is true that he would either need to show that Jesus is not both Body and Spirit, or that it is impossible to be both Body and Spirit. He did neither. My opponent did not refute this. Argument 4) My opponent sought to show a contradiction in the way the number of disciples is listed. Specifically that Paul refers to them as the 12, when Judas was dead (totaling 11) and Thomas may not have been present (totaling 10). I was able to respond to this by showing that Paul uses the term "the 12" as a technical term referring to the original Apostles (as opposed to those who would become Apostles later, such as himself) or to distinguish which Peter or Thomas he was referring to (Peter of the 12 as opposed to any other Peter). My opponent did not refute this. Argument 5) My opponent shows that the Bible records Satan entering Judas in two different times. I responded by pointing out that my opponent would have to prove that the spirit did not enter, leave, then enter again or that this is biblically inconsistent. In fact there is biblical evidence for spirits entering, leaving, and the returning. My opponent did not refute this. Argument 6) My opponent claims that John states the women were near the cross, while the Synoptic claim they were far away. I pointed out that my opponent would also need to prove John and the Synoptic refer to the same group of women in addition to proving that John uses the term "By the Cross" in a way that is mutually exclusive of the Synoptic "afar off" as both the term "By" and "Afar off” are relative terms dependent on the perspective of the speaker/writer. As you can see, I have successfully reconciled every apparent contradiction my opponent has mustered. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and kindly encourage him to read the terms of the debate more carefully next time. I would also like to thank you, the readers, for your participation and welcome any thoughts or feedback you have in the comments. Thank you!