Misunderstandings about the Holy Scriptures

This is what the gospel accounts record about that event...
In Matthew there is only a brief mention of Jesus' journey to Golgatha:

(Matthew 27:31, 32) . . .Finally, when they had made fun of him, they took the cloak off and put his outer garments upon him and led him off for impaling. 32 As they were going out they found a native of Cy·re′ne named Simon. This man they impressed into service to lift up his torture stake.

Mark's account says this:

(Mark 15:21, 22) . . .Also, they impressed into service a passerby, a certain Simon of Cy·re′ne, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Ru′fus, that he should lift up his torture stake. 22 So they brought him to the place Gol′go·tha, which means, when translated, Skull Place.

Now finally getting to Luke's account we have this:

(Luke 23:26-31) . . .Now as they led him away, they laid hold of Simon, a certain native of Cy·re′ne, coming from the country, and they placed the torture stake upon him to bear it behind Jesus. 27 But there was following him a great multitude of the people and of women who kept beating themselves in grief and bewailing him. 28 Jesus turned to the women and said: “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for me. On the contrary, weep for yourselves and for YOUR children; 29 because, look! days are coming in which people will say, ‘Happy are the barren women, and the wombs that did not give birth and the breasts that did not nurse!’ 30 Then they will start to say to the mountains, ‘Fall over us!’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us over!’ 31 Because if they do these things when the tree is moist, what will occur when it is withered?”

Finally the last account of the gospels, John states this:

(John 19:16, 17) . . .Then they took charge of Jesus. 17 And, bearing the torture stake for himself, he went out to the so-called Skull Place, which is called Gol′go·tha in Hebrew;

So to answer your question yes, Jesus did speak on his way to be executed, according to what was recording in Luke's account.

Well, scripture quotations would have been preferable, make things quicker to look up.

Your supposition that because the three other accounts don't note what Jesus said means he couldn't said anything is poppycock. The four gospels were written by four different people, while inspired by God, they don't all have to contain the same information. None of the gospels reference Jesus' adolescence and what he did while growing up, except to say that he was a carpenter, and one event in his life when he was a child. Just because they don't dwell on his early life does not mean he did not have one. That logic is not sound, nor does it show there is a discrepancy. Only that one writer added more details about that specific account than the others. Did I really just have to write this? I am beginning to wonder about your capacity to reason on things. Perhaps you shall prove me wrong yet.

Here are the references:

(Mark 15:26) And the inscription of the charge against him was written above, “The King of the Jews.”
(Luke 23:38) There was also an inscription over him: “This is the king of the Jews.”
(John 19:19) Pilate wrote a title also and put it on the torture stake. It was written: “Jesus the Naz·a·rene′ the King of the Jews.”

All three say the same thing. And just because one account refers to the fact that it was written in more than one language, and the other account do not give this detail, does not mean there is a discrepancy.

Rather, what both these examples prove is that the gospels were written by different people, and each from their own perspective, yet they also show a unity, which is in harmony with the claim that God's holy spirit guided their works.

John's account is much more detailed about what Jesus said the night he died. If you have ever taken the time to read it you would understand this. In fact John seems to go into depth into sayings of Jesus the three other gospel writers do not. But again, just because John is more detailed, that does not mean they contradict themselves.

Now the specific account you reference is when Jesus was in the garden of Gethsemane. And he actually prayed a very long time. Matthew recorded that during his first prayer he said this:

(Matthew 26:39) . . .And going a little way forward, he fell upon his face, praying and saying: “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will.”

And afterwards he returned to the apostles and saw them sleeping and awakened them and returned to praying.
Do you understand what the word "cup" means, to which he was referring? The "cup" was God's will for him. In fact in John he states this:

(John 18:11) . . .Jesus, however, said to Peter: “Put the sword into [its] sheath. The cup that the Father has given me, should I not by all means drink it?”

Now what I believe you are referencing in John is his prayer to Jehovah that is recorded in John 17. And what a beautiful prayer that is. But it is not out of harmony with his other prayer in Matthew. For if you notice, he asked God to remove the cup from him if he could, but he also stated: Yet, not as I will, but as you will." So Matthew also recorded that he was willing to do his Father's will.

Just because one account added the first prayer, and the other account dealt on his second prayer, and in more detail, does not show a contradiction. In fact to think otherwise just show a crass lack of study of the scriptures. Almost a cursory glance, or even a willful ignorance of what they are stating.

The fact that Jesus did NOT want to die as a blasphemer and criminal shows how much he cared about his Father's name. It also shows that he was separate form his Father, and it also shows that he was even willing, even though he did not want to, to do it.

That is exactly why the scriptures state that through these things that he suffered Jesus learned obedience to God:
(Hebrews 5:8) . . .Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered.

Still no contradiction.

Romans 4:2 states that "if" he was justified by his works, he would have ground for boasting, but not to God. Paul never stated that he was justified. In fact if you read Romans the whole point was to show that the spiritual Jew, or anointed Christian, could not be declared righteous by works of the law.

Now James 2:21-23 states:

(James 2:21-23) . . .Was not Abraham our father declared righteous by works after he had offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 You behold that [his] faith worked along with his works and by [his] works [his] faith was perfected, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says: “Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness,” and he came to be called “Jehovah’s friend.”

So we see that it was Abraham's faith that was counted to him as righteousness, but it was because he had works to back them up:

(James 2:24) . . .YOU see that a man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone.

Both James and Paul are in harmony. There is no contradiction. One cannot just have faith, without works. Just as James wrote:

(James 2:26) . . .Indeed, as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

So what if you claim you have faith in God? If you do not show that you have faith that faith is pointless and is dead.

That is why Jesus stated:

(John 3:16) “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.

Notice, Jesus did not state that everyone that has "faith" would gain everlasting life. He said that everyone "exercising faith" would gain everlasting life. So faith is needed, and only by faith is a person saved, but if that faith does not provide works that show that it is real, then it is dead, and it is pointless.

The faith that Abraham had that was pleasing was displayed in the fact that he was willing to sacrifice his son (although God did not allow him to do so). His works proved that his faith was real in Jehovah.

Still there are no contradictions.