No, not necessarily. You would do well to research crucifixion and especially the customs regarding 'carrying one's cross', which admittedly vary in time, not to mention the whim of the magistrate and soldiers involved. I will give you a hint: The part that must be carried in order to fulfill 'carrying the whole way' is the horizontal member, or cross-piece, which is the primal definition of 'cross'. That does not mean, necessarily, that he started the process carrying only the cross-piece.
What you seem to see as an insurmountable dichotomy, I see as forensic evidence - I know he was crucified upon what can be precisely identified as a cross of Mithras. Not a stake, not a tau, not a tree, even though all of these are qualified and interchangeable forms of crucifixion (and among the many variations used by Rome, and cited by the Bible). Because of this evidence (and the sign nailed above him), the only qualified possibility is the Mithras cross.
What about the two thieves who were crucified alongside Jesus?
Your assumption is that there were only two. The literal sense implies 5 crucified that day: Two thieves who mocked him, one malcontent who mocked him, and one malcontent who did not... and the key to understanding the evidence is the breaking of the legs.
So which of these accounts is the inerrant, inspired Word of God?
All of them. The problem you are encountering is by design. While there are four witnesses in the Gospels, each one testifies to a different aspect of Messiah. The whole message is not found until they are juxtaposed - Overlaid - All of the aspects seen together will offer astounding insight, and a perfect and prophetic chronology.
That is why one will omit an instance, where another will not. That is why one will emphasize what another will minimize... And it is only one with a sure belief in the literal sense - A LOVE of it - that will earnestly search out the meaning. That meaning is there. The evidence is sure. Dig deeper.
Customs or not, if Jesus got help carrying the cross, then he didn’t carry it the whole way himself. So one of those reports is incorrect. Has to be.
None of the Gospel writers was there. They are not witnesses, and they tell stories that do not agree with each other, in ways that cannot be reconciled. For you to deny it is a denial of reality.
Was Jesus in doubt and despair on the way to the cross (Mark) or calm and in control (Luke)? Did Jesus’ death provide an atonement for sin (Matthew and Paul) or not (Luke)? Did Jesus perform signs to prove who he was (John) or refuse to do so (Matthew)? Must Jesus’ followers keep the law if they are to enter the Kingdom (Matthew) or absolutely not (Paul)?
These are contradictory views and the contortions one goes through trying to make them both correct distorts and negtes them.
Many of the books were not written by the people to whom they are attributed, such as Matthew and John, or by the people who claimed to be writing them (Peter, 2 Timothy). Most of these books appear to have been written after the apostles themselves were dead. Only 8 of 27 books are almost certain to have been written by the people traditionally thought to be their authors. (These include some, but not all, of the Epistles.)
The Gospels for the most part do not provide disinterested information about Jesus. They contain stories that had been in oral circulation (likely distorted by the retelling) for decades before being written down, making it quite difficult to determine what Jesus actually said and did.
Even the earliest versions we have of many of these documents disagree with each other.
There were a lot of other Gospels available to early Christians, as well as other epistles, Acts, and apocalypses. The ones that were put in the Bible were chosen by a group of theologians with an agenda of putting down all other interpretations.
Many of these books claim to have been written by apostles and on the surface, those claims are no more or less plausible than the claims of the books that now make up the New Testament.
Is it possible that nonapostolic books were let into the canon by theologians who simply didn’t know any better? Is it possible that some books that should have been included were left out for the same reason?
Many major Christian doctrines, such as the suffering Jesus, the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the existence of Hell, came into existence not during Jesus’ life, nor through the teachings of his apostles, but later, as Christianity grew into a new religion, rather than a Jewish sect.