Which of these accounts do you disregard?

I think they are both wrong. The oldest Koine Greek texts of the incident say that the one who was called "son of the father" was released unharmed. He (unnamed) was standing next to a insurrectionist (in Koine Greek) who called himself, Jesus, the Messiah. the first known texts were written in Koine Greek - which is different from Greek.

Later versions changed the phrase "son of the father " or more exact, "son of Daddy" -- in Hebrew bar abba and in Koine Greek bar-abba. It became a name - Barabbas. The insurrectionist became a thief. He died and is worshipped to this day.

the one who said that by loving your enemy and doing to others as you would have them do to you, and as you believe, so it shall be done, had no reason to die on the cross, and if he was telling the truth in his teachings (something that is testable), he couldn't have died on the cross. He was released unharmed.

If bar abba (as in I am bat abba - female) was released unharmed and isn't the only begotten son of God (he never said he was - he said he is a son of god as you are and he is the light of the world as you are), then there is no way to make money off the ignorant peasants who were prevented by law from reading the sacred texts if they could read at all.

Christians have been lied to BIG TIME

I believe in both. I have no reason to not believe them. I think some details were left out for various reasons from one account to another. Sometimes it seems that the details given were different because at the crucifixion the person was standing further away from Jesus on the cross.

There is this litle thing called timeframe and sequence of events

I fear for this generation

Both Matthew and Luke got it right. Same story just told differently, but not told wrongfully...just differently. Have you ever sat as a juror on a court trial where there are witnesses? Three people will tell the exact same story three different ways. Same story, just different people pick up on or see what they want to see. Does not mean that any story is wrong just that each witness sheds more light on the story and understands it the same but interpreted in their own eyes and ears. It would really seem false if all told the exact same story with the exact same words, then we would know that we were being lied to. I have sat as a juror on many civil and criminal cases.

Why disregard either? Same account of events just different disciples writing them. No two people will see the event exactly alike. It doesn't change the facts of any of them happening.

Matthew's audience was the Jews and so he emphasised events which would have been significant to the Jews, such as the veil of the temple being torn, and the spirits of the dead being seen. Matthew's gospel was originally "The Gospel of the Hebrews" and was written in Hebrew. It was later that it was expanded and rewritten in Greek to become the "Gospel of Matthew" which we know today.

Luke was writing to Theopolis. No one is sure who he is, but it is suggested that perhaps he was a Roman governor who wanted to get more information about the beliefs of the rising number of Christians in his district. At that time Christianity was no longer a sect of Judaism but had spread to many non-Jews as well. Events that would have been of particular importance to the Jews would not have been important to them, and so Luke "undersold" or didn't mention those aspects.

Just shows you how made up the whole thing is. If Jesus had died and there was an earthquake, you can bet that every writer who wanted to "prove" he was "the son of god" would make sure to point out there was an earthquake. Not to mention historical accounts from all over the region describing an earthquake in about 33 CE, of where there are NONE.

I disregard all of them acuz the Bible is a work of fiction.