The new testament is without contradiction.

Quirinius does not fit in until 6 CE. This is not in dispute among many historians. ” We know that Augustus took a census every 12 years. Yes he was running military campaigns at this time but that doesn’t preclude a leadership post. As I mentioned before his leadership post may very well have been known as governor, as he presided over Cilicia and by extension likely Syria. [1] Skeptics always throw out the Historic evidence in the Bible simply because it is in the Bible when there are other historic sources are even more inaccurate. For many years the accuracy of Acts 13:7 was in question because historians contested that Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus was not in fact the proper title, but it was later found that the writer of Acts (usually thought to be Luke) was correct and the historians had been wrong. [2] In fact the writers of the Gospels were eyewitnesses to many of the events and are therefore more reliable sources than most of the Historians that came after them. “As for the Joseph vs Virgin birth contradiction, once you understand that these genealogies were put in to fulfill the Davadic prophecy of bloodline, it becomes a very big issue. They are claiming Jesus to be the blood of David through Joseph. This creates a huge problem as a Legal father is not blood. ” Matthew wrote for Jews so he uses Joseph’s line to establish Jesus’ legal status as a Jew. Due to the often awkwardness of Greek grammar and lack of punctuation, Luke’s record is very likely referring to Mary’s line and that the reference to Joseph is parenthetical. Although it doesn’t mention her directly, Eli (or Heli) is likely Joseph’s father in law, therefore Mary’s father and Jesus’ closest male ancestor. [3] [4] “Again Mathew 5:17-20 says not until Heaven and Earth have come to pass shall one jot or tittle be removed from the law. The law referring to the Torah as Jesus was a Jew and this is what Jews referred to as the law. To make this clear he refers to the Pharisees, who were strict law abiding Jews. The Pharisees would never agree with his statement about Jesus fulfilling it with his sacrifice and not needing anymore, so why would Jesus reference them in this situation? Oh that is right because he thought the entire law needed to be kept, which is in contradiction to Paul who didn't think it was useful. ” I already explained this, the final fulfillment hasn’t happened yet. What do you mean Jesus clearly thought the whole law should be kept, how then do you explain? Of course the Pharisees wouldn’t agree, Jesus proved to them why the law didn’t apply by healing on the Sabbath, something they were opposed to. Jesus revealed the full meaning of the law rather than merely its outward practice. If we read Matthew 5:17-20 we see, More importantly though Jesus is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and they hated him for that. Here we go with a syllogism right out of the biblical text; If both heaven and earth have not passed the least of the letters of the law stands Earth has not passed The law stands. As I have explained already, he fulfilled the sacrificial laws, not the moral laws. Those will only be fulfilled when heaven and Earth pass away as at that point there will be no need for the Earthly law as there will be a New Heaven and New Earth, and for the reasons I have stated above. “So just because the books have him saying 2 contradictory things as his last words doesn't mean they contradict, lol. If Luke is right, John is wrong, and so is Matthew. If my opponent is right that is a combination of all 3 then all three are wrong and we have a fourth contradictory story. ” Matthew 27:50 and Mark 15:37 both said that Jesus said “My God My God Why have you forsaken me” quoting Psalm 22 and then cried out in a loud voice but doesn’t say what it was he said. Luke 23:46 specifically mentions what it is that he cries out before he dies, John 19:30 says “It is finished”. There is nothing preventing him from having said all three statements in before he dies and one of them is recorded in different Gospels, this is not a contradiction and does not bring up a fourth version of the story. There is no reason that Jesus could not have said “My God My God why have you forsaken me” first (which seems to be the consensus in the Gospels) and then said “father into your hands I commend my spirit” before finally saying “It is finished” and giving up his spirit. I thank my opponent for the challenging yet enlightening debate. 1 . http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org... 2 . http://lavistachurchofchrist.org... 3 . http://www.ccel.org... 4 . http://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com...