Why do gospel contradictions matter?

[YGninja]

Imagine you are a policeman attending the aftermath of a supposed armed robbery of a shop. If all of the cashiers claimed the masked man entered the building at precisely 20:47, would you be more or less suspicious about their story than if they had given slightly varying times? "10 to 9", "about quarter to 9", "just before closing time at 9"...??
The differences are natural and demonstrate that there wasn't a conspiracy to invent the entire story.

You believers really should stop with the whole eyewitness testimony thing. Time and time again, we've demonstrated the fallibility of human memory and recollection of events. Bottom line? It's poor. Very, very poor. Studies have been done. Papers written. Case closed.

In court, one piece of circumstantial evidence will blow away 50 eyewitnesses. Case in point - all of the convictions overturned with DNA evidence. If the DNA doesn't match, it makes no difference what a fallible, emotional human "testifies" to. "But I SWEARS he done did it! I SWEARS!!" Please.

So, do yourselves a favor and stop with thinking your so-called eye-witless testimony helps your case in any respect. It does not. Not to mention, the eyewitless accounts are relayed by a fucking 3rd party such as Paul. There are no eyewitness accounts of the tales of Jesus and his Merry band. None. Paul never met him in the flesh. Everything else was written post-hoc, decades later - at best.

You really think this is compelling? Maybe if half your brain was knocked out and stomped upon the ground by a herd of escaping llamas and then boiled and served back to you as a breakfast cereal. Then, just mebbe.

But, you have no circumstantial evidence. All of the evidence is in favor of the Gospels, both within and outside of the Bible. You got Tacitus relaying Christus the founder of the Chrsitian faith being crucified by Pontius Pilate, "great multitides" being convicted of being Christian and murdered for not relinquishing their faith. Opponents of Christianity, not denying Christ or his miracles, but rather attributing them to the works of demons, or magic tricks.

"Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain [magical] powers... He
returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god... It was by means of
sorcery that He was able to accomplish the wonders which He performed... Let us believe that these cures, or the resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a few loaves... These are nothing more than the tricks of jugglers... It is by the names of certain demons, and by the use of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of [miraculous] power..." - Celsus 178AD.

If there were any room to deny Jesus, or atleast his miracles, don't you think he'd have done it? The most reasonable inference is that he is reduced to dismissing Jesus' miracles as tricks or by demons because they were historically accepted.

We even have a script of Julius Africanus rebutting Thallus' (52AD) explanation of the midday darkness and earth-trembling which occurred after the crucifixion. THallus tries to explain it away as an eclipse, but Africanus corrects him by the fact it couldn't have been an eclipse due to the time of the month.

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness. The rocks were rent by an earthquake and many places in Judea and other
districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the
sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the
passover. But an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time... Phlegon
records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth-manifestly that one
of which we speak. Chronography XVIII, 47"

Lastly, you just have no argument that all of the Gospels were written by third parties, or were originally written decades after the fact. The earliest copies we have can be ascribed as pre 60AD as they don't mention the falling of the temple which Jesus prophesized, which actually happened around 60AD. Surely if they were writing after the temple fell, they would have mentioned it as vindication of Jesus' prophesy.