There are no contradictions in the Bible

My opponent has so far not at all been able to fulfill his burden of proof. He has not even made he slightest effort to do so. Since the brunt of our disagreement centers around the resurrection (as well as the crucifixion) narrative in the Bible, I gave him a task to "chronologically and coherently explain the resurrection event" given all the discrepant accounts and descriptions. My opponent has repeatedly stated that the different accounts are reconcilable and true without offering any evidence to support that claim. Hence, I offered him a suggestion: to devote the two last rounds to settle our differences on the resurrection narrative in the Bible. I stated that in both round two and three. However, my opponent has, regrettably, ignored my offer completely. I expected a little courtesy from my opponent: either accept or decline the offer. I would have been fine with you politely declining the offer, although the offer was given for you so that you would be able to fulfill your burden of proof. However, you did not respond to me at all. "For those links, you just pointed out two verses but one is in Luke 1 and the other of the Crucifixion, so you still didn't specifically say what verses you want me to focus on." For heavens sake! Don't play dumb with me! I have tried to extract an explanation from you three times now as to why there are such obvious discrepancies in the crucifixion stories in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. I have stressed that point three times now. All right? I don't know if I can state it any more plainly. This is what I wrote: "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." Something went wrong when I tried to copy the bible chapters. I inadvertently copied Luke 1 when I meant to copy the CRUCIFIXION chapter. I am so terribly sorry if I confused you, sir, but I don't think you are an idiot. I think you know full well I was talking about that chapter. If you were confused about that, the normal response would have been to ask me either in the comments section or in the fourth round (which you forfeited). Why you bring that up in the last round is completely incomprehensible to me, except it is not. You just want to mess me. You don't want to answer that particular remark because you can't, and you found a ridiculous subterfuge not to. "As for Mark 16:8, it explains why this is not a contradiction. Matt. 28:8." "The women ran quickly from the tomb. They were very frightened but also filled with great joy, and they rushed to give the disciples the angel's message." You have offered no reason whatsoever as to how the different gospels can be reconciled with each other. None. Now you seem to believe that you can just merge Mark 16:8 and Matt 28:8 in order to extrapolate a new meaning. I have never seen any Christian apologetic do that. It's completely ridiculous. We have gone through these verses thoroughly. Here are the two verses. Matt 28:8. "So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples." Mark 16:8. "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." You can't simply arbitrarily exclude certain clauses that don't fit with the narrative and merge other clauses that do fit. Besides, how do you know your arbitrarily chosen arrangement is the right one? You have just arbitrarily ordered a few verses so as to try to show that they are consistent with one another when, in fact, they are not. At least you have not offered any proof as to why you can do that. You have essentially disproved your entire argument. My opponent has failed miserably in trying to prove that the Bible has no inconsistencies. My opponent has stated that "by observing and comparing each Gospel, each one has it's own unique theme". He has, however, demonstrably showed that he has not been successful at describing how these supposed "unique themes" can be merged together to create a consistent and unflawed narrative. "You had no rebuttals for the ones I already resolved." You haven't actually resolved anything. I have raised objections that you simply don't take seriously. You haven't proved anything by simply ignoring my objections and simply laugh them off. You haven't explained and elaborated on any of your points. Again, my opponent has not been able to straighten out the contradictions I have presented. He has also treated my points dismissively, and I'll leave you to be the judge of that.