Skeptics love throwing together comparisons of the Synoptic tradition and yelling "contradiction!" over minor differences in verbiage. Here's an example:

Skeptics see a difference in the "default" position: for or against? But simply put, there is no default. Where is the middle ground with Jesus? The New Testament, including the Gospels, present Jesus as the focal point of life; the Gospels have Jesus offering himself as Wisdom, commended to all men. Is there a middle ground for ultimate wisdom and truth? No, there isn't. Indeed, as Pilch and Malina note in Handbook of Biblical Social Values, in the ancient world all things were viewed in dualistic terms and there was no possible middle ground.

The sayings differ in form and verbiage, but not in essence -- the message is the same, and the differences are attributable to natural variations in oral tradition (as indeed Mark and Luke, though they agree in "default", vary in verbiage). Skeptics as usual can only find contradiction by reading the material through a 21st century literary lens (or complain irrelevantly -- see here).

We have a little more for that Ebon website as well. Ebon also ignores context in the course of his long-winded spiel. However, all of the passages have a context involving the casting out of demons. In Matthew, we find Jesus admonishing the Pharisees after they have claimed that Jesus casts out demons by Beelzebub. In the latter two, we find Jesus teaching the disciples after they complain that a man is casting out demons in Jesus' name. In neither case, in terms of context, is Jesus dealing with the default position imagined by Ebon. It seems that Ebon is simply unable to apply our response to the alleged problem. Moreover, Ebon has nothing worthwhile to say about the very important point by Malina and Pilch that in dualistic thinking, there is no "neutral" value line, only raising his previous fallacious canard about this meaning that the text isn't "relevant to every era," which we have already answered here, and hoisting a childish comparison to "the true incarnated god, Cezex Belhura'ashkip of Betelgeuse V, who will not even be born for five hundred thousand years and who will live and die eighty light-years from Earth in any case, but who genuinely is the only way to salvation." Fine. Where's Cezex's version of Romans 1-2?

Now about my point that such "neutrals" do not exist to begin with. Ebon offers back the question, "What about those who are still researching history in a genuine attempt to determine what they should believe?" I want to know who these people are and what's taking them so long to do their research. That's too simplistic of a personal profile for more comment beyond that.

Finally, on my point that, "Those who want to know it, will be given the knowledge needed for salvation. Those who seek God will have God sufficiently revealed to them," Ebon mysteriously expresses sympathy because he thinks that the Bible "nowhere addresses or even hints at what the answer to this plainly important question is," this in spite of the fact that I easily and readily paired to passages of that very text to get an answer (Rom. 1-2, Matt. 7:7//Luke 11:9). That's not an answer from the text?

I'll also add these blurbs from another item:

My own answer to the question, "What about those who never hear the Gospel?" is, "Those who want to know it, will be given the knowledge needed for salvation. Those who seek God will have God sufficiently revealed to them." There is also anecdotal evidence from the missionary field that may support this point; but such is currently beyond our discussion, and we may add it at a later date. Nevertheless, it is not lack of hearing the Gospel that causes condemnation; it is sin that causes condemnation, and it is not hard to arrive at a deduction that sin is offensive to whatever powers one may suppose to be at hand (indeed, the religious history of sacrifice and penance suggests a broad awareness of this!) and that there needs to be some connection or bridge in order to achieve a reconciliation. Even the Greeks knew that when Zeus said to jump, they were to ask how high if they didn't want to end up turned into a donut. Signs in the moon and such are completely unnecessary; indeed, one may somewhat suggest that hearing the Gospel message isn't strictly "necessary" -- the Gospel message certainly adds clarity and improves disciple functionality, but under this paradigm, lack of hearing it is not a valid excuse for not turning to the Creator. In this context an event limited by spatio-temporal constraints is not an argument against the significance of the event.